Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

207 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1994#4728 most cited

What is Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT authority for?

When a statute prescribes a specific method for exercising a power, that power must be exercised only in the manner prescribed.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharat Hari Singhania · section 154 · section 143(3) · assessment procedure · rules of Income Tax rules 1962 · Assessing Officer · statutory power · prescribed manner

Also reported as

73 Taxmann 3

Sections most often in play

Section 90Section 11UASection 128Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49valuation of sharesfresh tangible materialsection 55full value of considerationgoing concernindexed cost of acquisitiontransfer of capital assetfair market valuecolourable device

Judgments citing Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

Aparna Girish Hebbani, Australia vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Aparna Girish Hebbani Income Tax Officer, 21, Hallow Crescent, Ward – 2(2)(1), Augustine Heights, Queensland, Vs. Mumbai Australia (Pan : Ahhph4844H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat & Shri Raj Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 56, Mumbai Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061197750(1), Dated 20.02.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.01.2022 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat and Shri Raj Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aparna Girish Hebbani Income Tax Officer, 21, Hallow Crescent, Ward – 2(2)(1), Augustine Heights, Queensland, Vs. Mumbai Australia (PAN : AHHPH4844H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat and Shri Raj Mehta, CAs Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CI…

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 294, 17th Main 35th Cross, Ward - 7(2)(1), Jayanagar 4th T – Block, Bengaluru Bengalur – 560 041. . PAN – AYKPB 8659 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Veerabasanagouda, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee…

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Appellant Respondent Assessee by Revenue by No./BMA No. & Assessment Year ITAs No.405 Pradeep Wig, ACIT, Central Shri V.K. Ms Rajinder to 79, Sunder Nagar, Circle-5, New Bindal, CA, Kaur, CIT- DR 411/Del/2021 New Delhi -110 Delhi. Shri Saurabh AYs: 2011- 003. Sharma, Adv. 12 to 2017-18 PAN: & Ms Rinki AAAPW8331J Sharma, AR ITAs No. DCIT, Central Pradeep Wig, - DO - - DO - 153/Del/2022 Circle-5, New 79, Sunder Nagar, , Delhi New Delhi -110 716/Del/2021 003. &…

Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1935/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Helga Sequeria, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of No.10-1A, KR Puram Hobli, Income Tax, Hoodi Village, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 048. Bengaluru. PAN – AACCB 3621 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Helga Sequeria, C.A Revenue by : Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the as…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1868/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. and Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68A

…V. and ors. [2004] 265 ITR 435 (SC) Page 11 of 13 ITA No.- 1868/Del/2021 M/s Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd. ix. CIT Vs VVA Hotels Private Limited (Madras High Court) T.C.A. No. 670 of 2019 x. Bharat Hari Singhania & Others vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Others 207 ITR 1 (SC) xi. Cinestann Entertainment P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2019) (177 ITD 809) (Delhi) xii. DCIT vs. Pali Fabrics P. Ltd. (2019) (no taxmann.com 310)(mum) xiii. ACIT vs. Subhodh Menon (2019) (175 ITD 449) (Mum). 12. In the case at hand, where the CIT(A) has co-terminus power to examine the issue threadbare, and after admitting the additional evidences, h…

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

…onal, unreal, and imaginary income instead of real income, which could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. The Ld. AR to support his aforesaid contention had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). Bharat Hari Singhania Vs. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1(SC) (ii). S. Viji Vs. CGT (1998) 229 ITR 421 (SC) (iii). Harry Inder Dhaul Vs. Addl. CIT, ITA No.3499/Mum/2016 dated 09.05.2018 (ITAT, Mumbai). (iv). Keva Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 137 (ITAT- Mumbai) (v). ITO Vs. Mystical Infratech Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 4266/Mum/2017, dated 19.09.2022. 16. Adverting to the validity of the ju…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…in which that power is to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that has been prescribed. In support of such legal proposition, the following judicial pronouncementsare relied upon i. Bharat Hari Singhania (1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC)] ii. Chandra kishoreJha v. Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 scc 266 (SC)] iii. Orissa Rural Housing Development Corpn. Ltc. v. ACIT [2012] 204 taxman 673 (orissa High Court) iv. Singharasingh (1963) air 358, 1964 scr (4) 485 (Supreme Court) v. Medplus Health Services (P.) ltd v. Income Tax Officer [2016] 48 ITR (T) 396 (Hyderabad – Trib.) Thus consider…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…in which that power is to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that has been prescribed. In support of such legal proposition, the following judicial pronouncementsare relied upon i. Bharat Hari Singhania (1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC)] ii. Chandra kishoreJha v. Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 scc 266 (SC)] iii. Orissa Rural Housing Development Corpn. Ltc. v. ACIT [2012] 204 taxman 673 (orissa High Court) iv. Singharasingh (1963) air 358, 1964 scr (4) 485 (Supreme Court) v. Medplus Health Services (P.) ltd v. Income Tax Officer [2016] 48 ITR (T) 396 (Hyderabad – Trib.) Thus consider…

ACIT 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ties below" (Emphasis Supplied) 1.26. Further, reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the taxing statute prescribes a rule, it has to be strictly and mandatorily followed: • Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT ([1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC)) • Mrs. Prem Shamsher Singh v. CWT ([1994] 210 ITR 233 (Del HC)) 1.27. In the instant case, the learned AO has proceeded beyond the mandate of Rule 11 UA of the IT Rules and alleged that the Appellant should have valued its current investment first before proceeding to value its equity shares as per the provisions of the said rule. In doing s…

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2169/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

…e Parliament, it neither acquire the force of its parent enactment nor it can be equated with parent statute and can therefore, never run contrary to it. In this regard, he drew our attention to the following decisions-  Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT (1994) (207 ITR 1) (SC) A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust “17. Dr. Gauri Shanker submitted that inasmuch as section 46 provides for the rules being laid before both the Houses of Parliament for the specified period, it must be deemed that the Parliament has approved these rules. The consequence, according to the learned counsel, is that the rules have…

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

…e Parliament, it neither acquire the force of its parent enactment nor it can be equated with parent statute and can therefore, never run contrary to it. In this regard, he drew our attention to the following decisions-  Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT (1994) (207 ITR 1) (SC) A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust “17. Dr. Gauri Shanker submitted that inasmuch as section 46 provides for the rules being laid before both the Houses of Parliament for the specified period, it must be deemed that the Parliament has approved these rules. The consequence, according to the learned counsel, is that the rules have…

Sushiladevi R. Somani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 5795/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 55A

…ITA No.: 5795/Mum/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 5 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member] ITA No.: 5795/Mum/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 Sushiladevi R Somani …………………….. Appellant 17A, Shree Niketan, 6th floor 86, Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive Mumbai 400 002 [PAN: APEPS5744L] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 18(1), Mumbai ……………..…….Respondent Appearances: Prakash Jotwani for the appellant Hoshang B Irani and Mehul Jain for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 27/05/22 Date of pro…

Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th 1St & Tower-B, New Delhi 2Nd 5Th Ground & Floors, Sp Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc5056G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14(3)Section 144Section 43BSection 56(2)(viia)

…rvices Pvt. Ltd. 29. Reliance is being placed on the following decisions:  Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT [2006] 285ITR 158/152 Taxman 308 ACIT v. Morarji Textiles Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 1979 (Mum.) 0/2009, dated 10-05-2014]  Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1/73 Taxman 3 (SC) Mrs. Prem Shamsher Singh v. CWT [1994] 210 ITR 233/75 Taxman 580 (Delhi)  Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 SCC 266 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh AIR 1963 358 (SC)  Danish Aarthi v. M. Abdul Kapoor [C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) Nos. 475 & 476 0/2004, dated 28-1-2009]  Medplus Health Services vs ITO, 68 Taxmann.com 2…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but which also seems to be unaware of the ownership of the impugned land and the terms of the Lease deed dated 21.3.1973. Further it was admitted in violation…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but which also seems to be unaware of the ownership of the impugned land and the terms of the Lease deed dated 21.3.1973. Further it was admitted in violation…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but which also seems to be unaware of the ownership of the impugned land and the terms of the Lease deed dated 21.3.1973. Further it was admitted in violation…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but which also seems to be unaware of the ownership of the impugned land and the terms of the Lease deed dated 21.3.1973. Further it was admitted in violation…

Tsi Yatra Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Range-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1068/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ing out valuation of shares of Appellant as per NAV method is therefore ultra-vires the Act and the Rules as well as the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania & Others vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Others. (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that it is not an option of an assessing officer to either follow or not to follow the prescribed method of valuation but that he is bound to follow the rules of valuation made under the Act. 4. Without prejudice, that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of carrying out comparative analysis of projected…

Religare Capital Markets Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ic purpose and legislative intent behind the enactment of such provision. In other words, application of non obstante clauses ought to be confined to the purpose/ scheme for which they same was intended. The Hon‘ble apex Court in Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT 207 ITR 1 (SC) outlined the meaning and import of a non obstante clause in the following terms: ―21. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessees is that the Valuation Officer is not bound by and is not obliged to observe rule 1D. It is submitted that the Valuation Officer has to determine the market value of the asset referred to him independentl…

M/S Religare Capital Markets Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ic purpose and legislative intent behind the enactment of such provision. In other words, application of non obstante clauses ought to be confined to the purpose/ scheme for which they same was intended. The Hon‘ble apex Court in Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT 207 ITR 1 (SC) outlined the meaning and import of a non obstante clause in the following terms: ―21. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessees is that the Valuation Officer is not bound by and is not obliged to observe rule 1D. It is submitted that the Valuation Officer has to determine the market value of the asset referred to him independentl…

Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (207 ITR 1) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax