Arjun Malhotra v. CIT

403 ITR 354High Court2018#7450 most cited

What is Arjun Malhotra v. CIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot substitute the 'actual sale consideration' received by an assessee with another figure, such as the 'fair market value', if Section 52 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Arjun Malhotra v CIT · 403 ITR 354 · actual sale consideration · fair market value · Section 52 · capital gains · Assessing Officer · substitution of value · sale price · capital asset

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 12B of 1922 Act Section 12B(2) of 1922 Act Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act Section 147 of Income Tax Act Section 1956

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 156 dumb documents section 132(4a)reasoned order documents seized income-tax officer unexplained investment section 153c incriminating material section 271(1)(c)undisclosed income

Judgments citing Arjun Malhotra v. CIT

The Indra Company Limited(As Saumya Trade & Fiscal Services P. Ltd. Merged Into the Indra Co. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

ITA 2038/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

…Page | 1 I.T.A. No.: 2038/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Indra Company Limited (As Saumya Trade & Fiscal Services P. Ltd. merged into The Indra Co. Ltd.). आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B' BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शर्मा, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश मिश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2038/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Indra Company Limited (As Saumya Trade & Fiscal Services P. Ltd. merged into The Indra Co. Ltd.) Vs. I.T.O., Ward -12(3), Kolkata (Appella…

Atul Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 206/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69A

…rd, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 incriminating evidence was found du…

Atul Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 205/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69A

…rd, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 incriminating evidence was found du…

Atul Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1395/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69A

…rd, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 incriminating evidence was found du…

DCIT Central Circle -28, New Delhi vs. Atul Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1931/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69A

…rd, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 incriminating evidence was found du…

ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Rajiv Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1164/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69A

…rd, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 incriminating evidence was found du…

Mahesh Vishnu Pashankar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

ITA 429/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

…r provisions under the I.T.Act, 1961 enabling the Assessing Officer to substitute the actual sale consideration received, accrued by the Fair Market Value. 16. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT reported in (2018) 403 ITR 354 after referring to the old provisions of Sec.52 of the Income Tax Act and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co., (supra) and CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO (supra) in the context of Sec.52 of the I.T.A…

Vishnu Pundalik Pashankar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

…r provisions under the I.T.Act, 1961 enabling the Assessing Officer to substitute the actual sale consideration received, accrued by the Fair Market Value. 16. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT reported in (2018) 403 ITR 354 after referring to the old provisions of Sec.52 of the Income Tax Act and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co., (supra) and CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO (supra) in the context of Sec.52 of the I.T.A…

Amit Vishnu Pashankar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

ITA 427/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

…r provisions under the I.T.Act, 1961 enabling the Assessing Officer to substitute the actual sale consideration received, accrued by the Fair Market Value. 16. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT reported in (2018) 403 ITR 354 after referring to the old provisions of Sec.52 of the Income Tax Act and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co., (supra) and CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO (supra) in the context of Sec.52 of the I.T.A…

Neelu Analjit Singh, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

ITA 2172/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Senior

Section 2Section 45

…dering the per sale value of Scorpio beverages private limited at INR 70.59 per share. 18. On the merits of the issue, he submitted that when the coordinate bench decided the issue, decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Arjun Malhotra V CIT [ 403 ITR 354(Delhi)] was not available. In that decision it has been held that assessing officer could not have substituted the ‗actual sale consideration‘ received by the assessee with another figure stating that this was the ‗fair market value‘. Thus, he submitted that issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee and the sale price cannot be subs…

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…ish that assessee has received some benefit over and above the actual sales consideration. In this regard, we find support and guidance from a recent judgment of Delhi high court in case Arjun Malhotra vs. CIT Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2009-10 (403 ITR 354) where the same issue has been dealt and decided in favor of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: “24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and pronouncement of law in K.P. Varghese case (supra), we fail to fathom how the tribunal had distinguished the said decision solely and entirely on the ground that in the present c…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…10.13 Moreover, the onus is on Revenue to establish that assessee has received some benefit over and above the actual sales consideration. In this regard, we find support and guidance from a recent judgment of Delhi high court in case Arjun Malhotra vs. CIT (403 ITR 354) where the same issue has been dealt and decided in favor of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: “24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and pronouncement of law in K.P. Varghese case (supra), we fail to fathom how the tribunal had distinguished the said decision solely and entirely on the ground that in the present c…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…10.13 Moreover, the onus is on Revenue to establish that assessee has received some benefit over and above the actual sales consideration. In this regard, we find support and guidance from a recent judgment of Delhi high court in case Arjun Malhotra vs. CIT (403 ITR 354) where the same issue has been dealt and decided in favor of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: “24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and pronouncement of law in K.P. Varghese case (supra), we fail to fathom how the tribunal had distinguished the said decision solely and entirely on the ground that in the present c…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle & Waud Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…egard including the following :- 6 M/s. Hardcastle & Waud Manufacturing Co. Ltd.  Pr. CIT Vs. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal (88 Taxmann.com 306)  CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (159 ITR 71)  CIT Vs. B. Arunkumar & Co. (ITA No. 2337 of 2013)  Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT ( 403 ITR 354)  Barjinder Singh Bhatti Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1101/Chd/2014)  Pyare Mohan Mathur HUF Vs. ITO (ITA No. 471/Agra/2009)  Adarsh Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 66/Lkw/2014)  Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT (237 ITR 1)  Jansampark Advertising and Marketing P. Ltd. (375 ITR 373) 12. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Pipes Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4924/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, CAs

Section 48Section 50CSection 52

…he Hon’ble Apex Court, it is not open for the revenue to challenge the same unless and until the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KP Verghese (supra) is no longer a good law. He further submitted that recently in Arjun Malhotra vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354 (Delhi) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in KP Verghese (supra) held that when section 52 of the Act itself is not applicable, the Assessing Officer could not have substituted the actual sale consideration received by the assessee with another figure stating that this was the fair market valu…

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (403 ITR 354) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax