CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT

30 ITD 161Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#4840 most cited

What is CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT authority for?

A statement recorded during a search cannot be the sole basis for an addition to income, especially if made in violation of CBDT instructions and the provisions of section 132(4).

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indo Java & Co. v. IAC · 30 ITD 161 · section 132(4) · search assessment · statement during search · CBDT Instruction 47 · addition to income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 69ASection 234BSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qperquisite valuesection 100profit split methodsection 193section 65b(4)bright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)

Judgments citing CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the first time before the Tribunal in the following cases and were admitted:- i) Shree Balaji Alloys vs. ITO: 127 T'TJ 129 (Asr ITAT) - Confirmed b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…d. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd., 374 ITR 108, he submitted that th…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…d. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd., 374 ITR 108, he submitted that th…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…ata Jain vs. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K) − S.R. Koshti vs. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) − Ester Industries Ltd. vs. CIT: 316 ITR 260 (Del.) − DCIT vs. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag) − Jyotsana Holding (P) Ltd. vs. ITO: 37 ITD 430 (Del.) − Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB) 14.15 Further, it is also settled law that the purpose of the assessment is to compute income in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessing officer is therefore, even otherwise, duty bound to grant relief, which the assessee may not have claimed in the return of income: - CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920…