CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT v. Sadhana Gupta

352 ITR 595High Court2013#8048 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 153ASection 69BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 132Section 132(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(1)warrant of authorisationsection 60section 52on money receiptfull value of considerationsection 69bdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 127on-moneychild

Judgments citing CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT v. Sadhana Gupta

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…ideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further stated that the contention of the appellant-assessee that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture is supported by the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC) (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) Lalchand B…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…ideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further stated that the contention of the appellant-assessee that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture is supported by the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC) (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) Lalchand B…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…ideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further stated that the contention of the appellant-assessee that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture is supported by the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC) (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) Lalchand B…

JAYANTA KUMAR SARDAR,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR

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

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…d more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer rested on the Revenue and in the absence of that burden being discharged it would be legally impermissible to make any inferences against the assessee." In the case of ITO vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595 (Delhi) section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Undisclosed investments in property] - Assessment year 2007-08 _ Whether, where there was no other material to indicate that any extra consideration had passed from assessee, over and above declared value in respect of purchase of property, addition under section 69B could be made based merely on r…

SH. HAFIZUDDIN HAZI,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…nsideration cannot be doubted only on the basis of the report of the DVO. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) K.P. YARGHESE VS. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC); (ii) CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARWAL 338 ITR 485 (DEL); (iii) CIT VS. SADHNA GUPTA 352 ITR 595 (DEL); (iv) CIT VS. NAVEEN GERA 328 ITR 516 (DEL); (v) CIT VS. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI 316 ITR 46 (DEL); & (vi) TEEN MURTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO - ITA No.2281/DEL/2010 A.Y.06-07. 16. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out various defects in the report of the DVO which are enumerated at page 7 of the synopsis. He submitted that the ld.CIT(…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3158/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR
Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3155/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3156/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3158/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babli Kukreja, Vs. DCIT, C-5, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAMPK7753L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3157/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR
Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3155/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3156/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3158/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babli Kukreja, Vs. DCIT, C-5, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAMPK7753L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3156/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR
Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3155/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3156/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3158/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babli Kukreja, Vs. DCIT, C-5, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAMPK7753L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3155/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR
Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3155/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3156/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3158/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babli Kukreja, Vs. DCIT, C-5, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAMPK7753L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR
Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3155/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3156/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3158/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babli Kukreja, Vs. DCIT, C-5, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAMPK7753L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR
Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3155/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3156/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3158/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babli Kukreja, Vs. DCIT, C-5, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAMPK7753L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by: Shri SNA Najmi, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M…

SRI. NARAYANARAO M. MORE,,BIDAR vs. ITO, BIDAR

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 959/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: S/Shri B.S. Balachandran & P. Dinesh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jha, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ C ” BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.959 to 964/Bang/2014 (Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2009-10) Sri Narayanarao M More, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. H.No.8-9-270/A-62, Ward 1, Bidar. Gurunagar Colony, Bidar. PAN ASSPM 5328N Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : S/Shri B.S. Balachandran & P. Dinesh, Advocates. Respondent By : Shri D.K. Jha, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 29.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 31.8.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the composite order dt.24.0…

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA/460/2010HC Karnataka07 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260Section 68Section 69

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA ITA NO.460/2010 BETWEEN: SRI. S. S. JYOTHI PRAKASH, S/O. SRI. S. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROP: SHIVALNGA SWAMY, TRANSPORT, SAVARKAR NAGAR, SHIMOGA. ... APPELLANT (By SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SHIMOGA RANGE, SHIMOGA. ... RESPONDENT (By SRI. K. V. ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FIL…

ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ATUL PRAVINCHANDRA PAREKH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito-15(3)(1), Shri Atul Pravinchandra Room No.106, Parekh बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, 303, Shobha Apartment, 3Rd Vs. Tardeo Road, Floor, S.No. Road, Mumbai-400007 Tambe Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Ambpp5491R

Section 143(1)Section 69B

…MP), CIT vs Dinesh Jain; Lata Jain (2013) 352 ITR 629, CIT vs Wester Estates 209 ITR 343 (Cal.), CIT vs Bajranglal Bansal 335 ITR 572 (Del.), Dhanush General Store vs CIT 339 ITR 651 (Chhatisgarh), CIT 8 Shri Atul Pravinchandra Prakash vs Sadhna Gupta (2013) 352 ITR 595 (Del.), CIT vs Fair Deal Textile Park Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 497 (Guj.) and CIT vs Veerdip Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), supports our view. So far as, primary burden of proof to prove under statement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged, then addition can be made as was held in CIT v…