CIT v. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd.

319 ITR 276High Court2009#5200 most cited

What is CIT v. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd. authority for?

An appellate authority cannot re-characterize an addition made by the Assessing Officer under one section of the Act to another section without issuing a show cause notice. A reference to the Departmental Valuation Cell for determining investment in construction cannot be deemed to be without the authority of law.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Aar Pee Apartments · Section 69C · Section 69B · show cause notice · Section 142A · DVO reference · investment in construction

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69BSection 115BBESection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 113bogus share capitalsection 38onus of proofreference to tporetrospective amendmentsection 158bbsource of sourceretraction of statementrejection of books of accountblock period

Judgments citing CIT v. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd.

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…he decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Munir Ismail Voraji (82 Taxmann.com 92). The assessee also assailed the action of DVO reference by Ld. AO by quoting the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (319 ITR 276) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anand Banwarilal Adhukia (75 Taxmann.com 301). It was further stated that what could be referred for valuation has to be ‘asset’, ‘property’ or ‘investment’ as contemplated u/s 142A(1). However, for the assessee, amount spent on construction of real estate project would only be an exp…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…he decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Munir Ismail Voraji (82 Taxmann.com 92). The assessee also assailed the action of DVO reference by Ld. AO by quoting the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (319 ITR 276) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anand Banwarilal Adhukia (75 Taxmann.com 301). It was further stated that what could be referred for valuation has to be ‘asset’, ‘property’ or ‘investment’ as contemplated u/s 142A(1). However, for the assessee, amount spent on construction of real estate project would only be an exp…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…he decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Munir Ismail Voraji (82 Taxmann.com 92). The assessee also assailed the action of DVO reference by Ld. AO by quoting the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (319 ITR 276) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anand Banwarilal Adhukia (75 Taxmann.com 301). It was further stated that what could be referred for valuation has to be ‘asset’, ‘property’ or ‘investment’ as contemplated u/s 142A(1). However, for the assessee, amount spent on construction of real estate project would only be an exp…

SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 196/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…treat the addition made by the AO under Section 69C as an addition under Section 69B of the Act. We find that the Tribunal, while so concluding, had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd, 319 ITR 276 (Del). Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, in the case of Pooja Dipen Joshi vs. ITO, ITA No. 856/Ahd/2023, dated 15/05/2025. In the said case, the AO had made an addition under Section 50C r.w.s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which, thereafter, on appeal, was sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 6…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

…he building, if not recorded in the books of account, falls under Section 69 of the Act. It disagreed with the decision of the Delhi High ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 27 of 28 Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aar Pee Apartments P. Ltd., [2009] 319 ITR 276, and was of the view that the reference made to the Departmental Valuation Cell for the purposes of determination of the investment in the construction of building cannot be said to be without the authority of law. Reference was also made to an unreported judgment in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aayakar Bhawan, Lucknow Vs. M/s.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 49/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

…tion was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 48/NAG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

…tion was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

…tion was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 140/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

…tion was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 27/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

…tion was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 26/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

…tion was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 658/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 69

…of ascertaining the correct value of investment referred to in section 69 or 69B. However, Section 69C is not mentioned in the proviso. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd. 319 ITR 276 to buttress the contention that reference is bad in law. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise also the Assessing Officer did not make any inquiry regarding the correct fair market value of the land. In support of the contention that if inquiry is not made by the assessing authority the assessment is vitiated, learned counsel for…

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on ground no

ITA 6578/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2015-16
Section 69Section 69C

…I.T.A.No.6578/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6578/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Smt. Nirmla Jain, ITO W/o Late Sh. Pawan Kr. Jain, Vs. Ward 2(1), L.M. Agarwal & Co., CAs, CGO complex-2, KA-32, Kavi Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. ACCPJ8057G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S/Sh. L.M. Agarwal िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Deepanshu Agarwal, CAs Shri Hemand Gupta, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 24.01.2023 14.0…

PARASMANI (TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD-2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyasstt. Year : 2010-11 Parasmani (Trust) Vs. Ito(E), Ward 2(4) Wz, A/88, Krishna Park New Delhi. Extn. New Delhi – 110 018 Pan Aaatp9800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Ganguli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 48Section 68Section 69A

…der which the Assessing Officer has made the addition. In support of such contention, learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:- i) Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO(2022) 95 ITR (Trib) 74 (Delhi) ii) CIT vs Aar Pee Apartments (P.) Ltd. 319 ITR 276 6. Ld. Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Undoubtedly, the addition in dispute represents the cash deposit made in the bank account. On perusal of the impugned assessmen…

TOFFEE AGRICULTURAL FARMS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4903/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…1 Toffee Agricultural Farms P. Ltd. Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _4903/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Vs Income-tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward 25(3), New Delhi 67, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 PAN- AACCT3058J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Anil Bhalla, CA Respondent by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 18.04.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner…

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 309/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

….Selvaraj Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 258 ITR (AT) 82 " K.K.Seshaiyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 246 ITR 351 (Mad. H.C.) 11 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aur Pee Apartments P.Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 276 (Del. H.C.) " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Construction reported in 257 ITR 502 (Mad.H.C.) 8. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and also the following case laws: " Dr.Raghuvendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 504 (Punjab & Haryana) Wherein, it was held that where the c…

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 308/CHNY/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

….Selvaraj Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 258 ITR (AT) 82 " K.K.Seshaiyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 246 ITR 351 (Mad. H.C.) 11 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aur Pee Apartments P.Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 276 (Del. H.C.) " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Construction reported in 257 ITR 502 (Mad.H.C.) 8. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and also the following case laws: " Dr.Raghuvendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 504 (Punjab & Haryana) Wherein, it was held that where the c…

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

….Selvaraj Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 258 ITR (AT) 82 " K.K.Seshaiyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 246 ITR 351 (Mad. H.C.) 11 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aur Pee Apartments P.Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 276 (Del. H.C.) " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Construction reported in 257 ITR 502 (Mad.H.C.) 8. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and also the following case laws: " Dr.Raghuvendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 504 (Punjab & Haryana) Wherein, it was held that where the c…

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 306/CHNY/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

….Selvaraj Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 258 ITR (AT) 82 " K.K.Seshaiyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 246 ITR 351 (Mad. H.C.) 11 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aur Pee Apartments P.Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 276 (Del. H.C.) " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Construction reported in 257 ITR 502 (Mad.H.C.) 8. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and also the following case laws: " Dr.Raghuvendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 504 (Punjab & Haryana) Wherein, it was held that where the c…

CIT vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS & RESORTS LTD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/581/2012HC Delhi05 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…s 142A to the Departmental Valuation Officer is not in accordance with law as Section 142A does not apply on section 69C and reliance was placed mainly on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AAR PEE Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del). Secondly, the reference to DVO was challenged on the ground that no defect has been pointed out in the books of account which are regularly maintained by the assessee and are audited. Without pointing out any defects in the books of account no addition, whatsoever, could be made on account of difference in the cost of construction…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2