Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

337 ITR 399High Court2011#341 most cited

What is Ashok Chaddha v. ITO authority for?

In search assessments under section 153A, a notice under section 143(2) is not required if a notice under section 153A(1)(a) has been issued. Modest or customary jewellery, commensurate with age and status, found during a search, especially if it is 'Stridhan' or falls within CBDT guidelines, cannot be added as unexplained income.

252

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO · section 153A assessment · section 143(2) notice · unexplained jewellery · Stridhan · CBDT Instruction 1916 · section 69A addition · search assessment procedure · modest customary jewellery · no specific notice 143(2)

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 38769 DTR 82

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 115BBESection 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbe(b)section 2(28c)section 117section 271aab(1a)section 37bsection 271aaatime barred assessmentsection 245dsection 144baincome tax settlement commissionsection 153a(1)(a)unexplained jewellery

Judgments citing Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…orded under section 148 of the I.T. Act which is the statement of the A.O. The disputed question cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. CIT (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del.). The Ld. D.R. relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi vide ITA.No.2158/Del./2017, 20 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…orded under section 148 of the I.T. Act which is the statement of the A.O. The disputed question cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. CIT (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del.). The Ld. D.R. relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi vide ITA.No.2158/Del./2017, 20 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…orded under section 148 of the I.T. Act which is the statement of the A.O. The disputed question cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. CIT (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del.). The Ld. D.R. relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi vide ITA.No.2158/Del./2017, 20 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi…

Smt. Rupinder Dhanoa Sidhu, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 146/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13) Smt. Rupinder Dhanoa Sidhu Vs ACIT C/o. R. S. Ahuja & Co. C.A Central Circle-31 C-353, Defence Colony New Delhi. New Delhi ACIPD0250F (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Respondent by Sh. Raja Ram Sah, CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/10/2015 passed by CIT(A)-30, New…

Kadir Usman Shaikh, Lonavala vs. ITO Cen.II, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 477/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 476 & 477/Pun/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 40A(3)

…03.08.2018. Bringing our attention to the contents of Para 3 of the said order, Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that the issue was decided against assessee by relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO reported in 337 ITR 399 (Del.). The said judgment is relevant for the proposition that the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory in a case of the assessment made u/s.153A of A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 the Act. For the sake of completeness, the relevant para is extracted as under: “3. Referring to the above said grounds, Ld. AR for the assessee brought o…

Kadir Usman Shaikh, Lonavala vs. ITO Cen.II, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 476/PUN/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 476 & 477/Pun/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 40A(3)

…03.08.2018. Bringing our attention to the contents of Para 3 of the said order, Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that the issue was decided against assessee by relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO reported in 337 ITR 399 (Del.). The said judgment is relevant for the proposition that the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory in a case of the assessment made u/s.153A of A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 the Act. For the sake of completeness, the relevant para is extracted as under: “3. Referring to the above said grounds, Ld. AR for the assessee brought o…

Kadir Usman Shaikh, Lonavala vs. ITO Cen.II, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 474/PUN/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

…said grounds, Ld. AR for the assessee brought our attention to Ground Nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 and submitted that the said grounds have to be decided against the assessee in view of the binding High Court judgment in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in 337 ITR 399 (Del.) which is relevant for the proposition that the issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is not mandatory in a case of the assessment made u/s.153A of the Act. Ld. AR filed the written note relying on the said proposition. Considering the concession given by the Ld. AR for the assessee in this regard by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Delh…

Kadir Usman Shaikh, Satara vs. ITO, Cen.II Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 473/PUN/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

…said grounds, Ld. AR for the assessee brought our attention to Ground Nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 and submitted that the said grounds have to be decided against the assessee in view of the binding High Court judgment in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in 337 ITR 399 (Del.) which is relevant for the proposition that the issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is not mandatory in a case of the assessment made u/s.153A of the Act. Ld. AR filed the written note relying on the said proposition. Considering the concession given by the Ld. AR for the assessee in this regard by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Delh…

Kadir Usman Shaikh, Satara vs. ITO, Cen.II Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 472/PUN/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

…said grounds, Ld. AR for the assessee brought our attention to Ground Nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 and submitted that the said grounds have to be decided against the assessee in view of the binding High Court judgment in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in 337 ITR 399 (Del.) which is relevant for the proposition that the issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is not mandatory in a case of the assessment made u/s.153A of the Act. Ld. AR filed the written note relying on the said proposition. Considering the concession given by the Ld. AR for the assessee in this regard by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Delh…

Smt. Ruchi Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2811/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 RADHA MITAL, VS. DCIT, CC-1, 10-11, NELSON MANDELA MARG, FARIDABAD VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAMPM9282G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14 RUCHIE MITAL, VS. DCIT, CC-1, 10-11, NELSON MANDELA MARG, FARIDABAD VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI (PAN: ADDPG0409P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. & Sh. P.K. Kamal & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM…

Smt. Radha Mital, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2810/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 RADHA MITAL, VS. DCIT, CC-1, 10-11, NELSON MANDELA MARG, FARIDABAD VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAMPM9282G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14 RUCHIE MITAL, VS. DCIT, CC-1, 10-11, NELSON MANDELA MARG, FARIDABAD VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI (PAN: ADDPG0409P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. & Sh. P.K. Kamal & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM…

Lalji & Sons, Bankura vs. ACIT, Circle - Bankura, Bankura

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 220/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri M. Balaganesh,Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 220 to 222/Kol/2016 A.Ys : 2003-04, 04-05 & 05-06 M/s. Lalji & Sons Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-Bankura PAN: AABFL 0085B Bankura [Appellant-Assessee] [Department-Respondent] Appellant by : Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate, ld.AR Respondent by : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl, CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 14-11-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 25-01-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: These three appeals by the Assessee are against the separate orders dt: 1…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Sankhla, Jaipur

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

ITA 608/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR

…the same, the jewellery of 719.175 gms claimed as received on marriage, on birth of children and on other social occasion is reasonable and should be accepted. Reliance in this connection is also placed on the following cases:- (i)Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO [2012] 69 DTR 82 (Del.) (ii)CIT Vs. Satya Narain Patni 366 ITR 325 (Raj.) (HC) (iii)Smt. Pati Devi vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kar) (iv)Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Ratan lal Vyaparilal Jain (Guj.) (HC) 339 ITR 351 In view of the above, the order of CIT(A) be upheld by dismissing the ground of the department.’’ 20 The ACIT, Central Circ…

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)

…itself is not stating that notices u/ss 143/142 of the Act to be issued as was required under the earlier block assessment scheme u/s 158BC. This absence of specific provision was considered by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha reported as 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) wherein it was observed by the Court ―There is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment under s. 153 A to be made after issue of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) wherein it was hel…

Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dict, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 371/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Panda, DGM, OMCFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…is valid and issue of notice u/s.143(2) before framing the reassessment order u/s.147 is not mandatory. For this, he relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd., (2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del) ii) Ashok Chaddha vs ITO, (2012) 337 ITR 399 (Del) iii) Mumbai Third Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sumanalata Bansal vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.525 to 530/Mum/2008 for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2005-06. 11. We find that Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd(supra) on the above issue has held as under: “32. It is virtually admitted by th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.G. Finvests Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6759/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 ACIT, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement…

K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6662/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 ACIT, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement…

Asst CIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vinod Ramniwas Garg, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2899/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69B

…dated 11-5-1994 which is placed in paper book of case laws/page 1. The ld. Counsel also relied upon following judicial decisions in support of his claim:- ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 16 1. CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 2. Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (2012) 69 DTR 82 (Del) 3. CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351(Guj.) 4. CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) It was also submitted that no documents were seized during the search operations by Revenue which incriminates assessee. It was submitted that the AO erred in invoking Section 69B of 1961 Act while making additions, while the applicab…

Vinod Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2249/MUM/2015[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69B

…dated 11-5-1994 which is placed in paper book of case laws/page 1. The ld. Counsel also relied upon following judicial decisions in support of his claim:- ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 16 1. CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 2. Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (2012) 69 DTR 82 (Del) 3. CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351(Guj.) 4. CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) It was also submitted that no documents were seized during the search operations by Revenue which incriminates assessee. It was submitted that the AO erred in invoking Section 69B of 1961 Act while making additions, while the applicab…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…irst assessment where assessee is entitled to make any claim because that is a regular assessment also apart from search assessment. 11. The learned CIT DR also relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Del.) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has interpreted the words “so far as may be” in Para 13 as under:- “13. The words "so far as may be" in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 153A could not be interpreted that the issue of notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory in case of assessment under Section 153A. The use of the words, "so far as…