C.B. Gautam v. Union of India

199 ITR 530Supreme Court of India1993#2193 most cited

What is C.B. Gautam v. Union of India authority for?

Violation of the principle of natural justice, especially the right to an opportunity of being heard, may lead to an infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

C.B. Gautam v. Union of India · C.B. Gautam · natural justice · opportunity of being heard · audi alteram partem · violation of fundamental rights · Article 14 · Article 21 · income tax proceedings · fair hearing

Also reported as

65 Taxmann 440

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 23aretention moneysection 145(1)section 55asection 23(3)section 50c(1)section 211section 115baasection 66section 28(iv)section 145(2)section 43c

Judgments citing C.B. Gautam v. Union of India

Shri Anil Bhikhubhai Vartaria, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

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

ITA 255/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 253/Rjt/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 & ITA No. 255/Rjt/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Shri Mahesh Vs The ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhikhubhai Varotaria Jamnagar Avantika Complex 3rd Floor-Limda Lane (Respondent) Corner, Jamnagar-361008 PAN No: ABDPV4498F Shri Anil B Varotaria Vs The ITO, Ward-2(1), Complex Jamnagar 3rd Floor-Limda Lane Corner, Jamnagar-361008 PAN No: ACVPV3770H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A…

Shri Mahesh Bhikhubhai Varotaria, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1), Jamnagar

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

ITA 253/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 253/Rjt/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 & ITA No. 255/Rjt/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Shri Mahesh Vs The ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhikhubhai Varotaria Jamnagar Avantika Complex 3rd Floor-Limda Lane (Respondent) Corner, Jamnagar-361008 PAN No: ABDPV4498F Shri Anil B Varotaria Vs The ITO, Ward-2(1), Complex Jamnagar 3rd Floor-Limda Lane Corner, Jamnagar-361008 PAN No: ACVPV3770H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Mahavir Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 29Section 43C

…1) (2021) 209 TTJ 850 (b) Sandeep Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.924/Bang/2019 (c) Kishore Hira Bhandari Vs. Income Tax Officer in 177 ITD 565 (d) CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company reported in 404 ITR 654 (e) C.B Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others in 199 ITR 530 (f) Rahul Constructions Vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Pune) (Trib) 19 (g) Smt. Sita Bai Khetan Vs. Income Tax Officer 181 TTJ (JP) 549 4.1.5. In view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, the A.O is not justified in making addition by invoking provisions u/s.43CA of the Act. Therefore, addition made by the…

Mother Gian Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO(E) Ward - 1(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8173/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mother Gian Educational Vs Ito(E), Society, F-I/U, Vishakha Ward-1(4), Enclave, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aabtm0218K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mother Gian Educational vs ITO(E), Society, F-I/U, Vishakha Ward-1(4), Enclave, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. PAN-AABTM0218K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Tarun Rohtagi, CA Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 20.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-40, Delhi dated 09.08.2019. 2. The assessee has raised followin…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT –Circle – 10(1) v. M/s. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 PAN: AADCG8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd v. DCIT –Circle – 12(1) now 10(1) C/o. M/s. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 PAN: AADCG8569L (Appe…

M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT –Circle – 10(1) v. M/s. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 PAN: AADCG8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd v. DCIT –Circle – 12(1) now 10(1) C/o. M/s. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 PAN: AADCG8569L (Appe…

Jitendra K Sewani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result ground number 3

ITA 2252/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Parekh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 50Section 50C

…urt since the variation in the value shown in the sale deed and the value reported in the DVO report was only 12.73% which was within the tolerable limit of 15% variation as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India 199 ITR 530. We consider that judicial findings as discussed in this order articulate the fact that small variation within the tolerable limit of 15% as I.T.A No. 863/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 20 Ashokkumar Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as elaborated supra between the value shown by the assessee and the value of the DVO is liable…

Satishkumar Asamal Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1011/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1011/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Satishkumar Asamal Mehta, I.T.O., 3, Saras Society, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), Nr. Sindhi High School, Ahmedabad. Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Abipm7789B

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 271Section 56(2)(vii)

…pect to difference in stamp valuation viz-a-viz value as per deed, the assessee submitted that there were marginal difference of 3% in case of one property only. Therefore, in view of judgment of Hon’ble SC in case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India reported in 199 ITR 530 where it was held that ‘variation up-to 15% is with tolerable limit’, no adverse inference should be drawn. 4.5 However the AO disbelieved the submission of the assessee by observing that in order to carry out the cross verification, notices were issued under section 133(6) of the Act to the vendors namely Jinal Properties Pvt. Ltd through post…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Surat vs. Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi V Circle-3(1), Room No.112, 1Str Floor, Diam Jewels, 7/4155, Sunder S. Anavil Business Center, Adajan Char Rasta, Sadan, Galemandi, Suthar Faliya, Surat Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxps 9521 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 269USection 50CSection 52

…allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs.1,70,87,143/- relying upon the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat in the case of co-owner, Payal Vishal Gandhi and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B Gautam vs. UOI 199 ITR 530 and K.P.Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597. 6.Aggrieved, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, Learned Counsel argued that Commissi…

Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, Surat vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Block No.4, Krishna Park Society, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat. Vs Shyam Dham Road, Nan Varachha, Surat – 395006. Pan: Achpb 9761 A Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Block No.4, Krishna Park Society, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat. Vs Shyam Dham Road, Nan Varachha, Surat – 395006. PAN: ACHPB 9761 A Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Hiren R. Vepari – CA Revenue by Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. DR 04/10/2021 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement 13/12/2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appe…

Soni Jitendra Parmar, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-38, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5978/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5978/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Soni Jitendra Parmar Cit(A)-38 1103, D Wing, 11Th Road Room No.402, 4Th Floor बिाम/ Sali Ran Road, Lloyds Estate Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Vs. Wadala East, Mumbai-400 037 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Arepp-9850-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ion of this Tribunal in John Flower India V/s DCIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 545/Mum/2014) wherein it was held that since the difference was less than 10%, the declared value was to be accepted. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam V/s Union of India (199 ITR 53) held that no additions was to be made in case the difference was less than 15%. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that on individual basis, the difference in value was to the extent of 10.10%, 15.96% and 3.12%, Therefore, in terms of cited decision of Mumbai Tribunal, addition with respect to flat No.A-305 was to be deleted. However, in case of other…

Shri Ashokkumar Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has specifically verified the issue of actual sale price and the valuation determined by the DVO and also considered the necessary judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. B. Gautam VS. Union of India 199 ITR 530 (SC) as its copies along with other relevant materials were provided at the time of assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment relevant materials to substantiate the existence of encroachment on the sold land were also submitted. The Assessing Officer has also visited the actual site of the land and noticed encroachme…

Shri Nilesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 294/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…n law: a. Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT 71 DTR 33 b. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 d. Ponkunnam Traders 83 ITR 508 e. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & others 26 ITR 001 f. C. B. Gautam vs CIT 199 ITR 530 g. Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 IT Thus it would be seen that there was clear and gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 24.1 In Para No.3.8 of the assessment order it has been stated that letters were issued to various persons who were stated to be counterparty in the transaction to explain the transaction and in most of the cases the…

Pritesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4 (2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 293/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…n law: a. Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT 71 DTR 33 b. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 d. Ponkunnam Traders 83 ITR 508 e. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & others 26 ITR 001 f. C. B. Gautam vs CIT 199 ITR 530 g. Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 IT Thus it would be seen that there was clear and gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 24.1 In Para No.3.8 of the assessment order it has been stated that letters were issued to various persons who were stated to be counterparty in the transaction to explain the transaction and in most of the cases the…

Aruna Kommuri, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2030/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G. KalyandasFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54F

…of . the land and burden squarely lays on the revenue in this regard to establish that the sale was for an additional sale consideration not mentioned in the sale deed. It may also be stated that the Supreme Court in the case of CP Gautham Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 530 has held that the 3 Aruna Kommuri, Hyd. difference of market value and sale consideration actually received may vary upto 15% tolerance. 4. I had executed two sale Deeds in respect of undivided share of land al admeasuring 718.33 Sq. yards. Both Sale Deeds here executed by me in December 2005 in favour of Sri Jukku Satyanarayana Reddy, Sri Jukku…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

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

ITA 2554/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…igour of the law for the benefit of the assessee by issuing circulars to ensure a proper administration of the fiscal statute and such circulars would be binding on the authorities administering the Act. 9. In the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 at page 546/[1992] 65 Taxman 440, a Bench of five Judges of this Court considered as enforceable, Instruction No. 1A88 issued by the Board relating to the enforcement of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act. The Board pointed out in the said instruction that in administering the provisions of the said Chapter, it has to be ensured that no ha…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

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

ITA 2553/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…igour of the law for the benefit of the assessee by issuing circulars to ensure a proper administration of the fiscal statute and such circulars would be binding on the authorities administering the Act. 9. In the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 at page 546/[1992] 65 Taxman 440, a Bench of five Judges of this Court considered as enforceable, Instruction No. 1A88 issued by the Board relating to the enforcement of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act. The Board pointed out in the said instruction that in administering the provisions of the said Chapter, it has to be ensured that no ha…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

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

ITA 2552/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…igour of the law for the benefit of the assessee by issuing circulars to ensure a proper administration of the fiscal statute and such circulars would be binding on the authorities administering the Act. 9. In the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 at page 546/[1992] 65 Taxman 440, a Bench of five Judges of this Court considered as enforceable, Instruction No. 1A88 issued by the Board relating to the enforcement of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act. The Board pointed out in the said instruction that in administering the provisions of the said Chapter, it has to be ensured that no ha…

Welfare Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4934/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Soodwelfare Properties P. Ltd. Dcit-13(3)(1), 102-103, A-Wing, Shree Savgan Chs Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 1St Floor, Rto Lane, Near Ambedkar Hall, M.K. Road, Vs. Four Bungalow, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 053 Pan – Aaacw1922C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…eived in respect of agreement to sale executed during the year and brought to tax as per revenue recognised on percentage completion method. 1.i In so doing, he did not appreciate the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of C. B. Gautam Vs. Union of India [199 ITR 530 (SC)] rendered in respect of presumptive purchase of property under Chapter XX-C of the Act wherein the Apex Court accepted the tolerance limit of 15% which tolerance limit was followed by various Benches of the Tribunal throughout the country while adjudicating the issues with regard to provisions of section 50-C of the Act on sale of capital as…

Shri Ashutosh Sharadbhai Kapadia, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxn.), Surat

Appeal are allowed

ITA 449/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 55A

…t of 15%. Hence, the AO could not have formed an opinion to refer the matter to the DVO. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance of Hon`ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1992] 199 ITR 530 (SC) wherein it was held that provisions of Chapter XX-C can be resorted to only where there is a significant under valuation of property to the extent of 15 percent or more in the agreement of sale as evidenced by the apparent consideration being lower than the fair market value by 15 percent or more. It was further claimed that the building was…