CIT v. Arun Malhotra

363 ITR 195High Court2014#2945 most cited

What is CIT v. Arun Malhotra authority for?

Where transactions are found to be bogus, additions on account of such transactions cannot be deleted by the Tribunal without examining the evidence on record. The Assessing Officer is justified in making additions, including 100% of bogus purchases, when transactions are proved to be non-genuine.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Arun Malhotra · 363 ITR 195 · bogus purchases · undisclosed income · section 69A · addition · Tribunal deletion · evidence · Assessing Officer · Delhi High Court

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

trade creditorsincome tax settlement commissioninterest free advancespermanent account numbersection 142(2a)section 14a(2)business connectionsection 41(1)section 48section 41rejection of books of accountblock period

Judgments citing CIT v. Arun Malhotra

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 4287/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…out of enquiry related to source of investment, if details of such undisclosed investment is found during the course of search, addition has to be sustained. 23.3 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Malhotra, 363 ITR 195, she submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the ITA Nos.4287 to 4289, 1499, 4290/Del/2018 said decision has held that where the AO having found that transaction of purchase and sale were bogus, made addition u/s 69A, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition without going into evidence on record. Referring to the decision of the H…

Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 2801/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…out of enquiry related to source of investment, if details of such undisclosed investment is found during the course of search, addition has to be sustained. 23.3 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Malhotra, 363 ITR 195, she submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the ITA Nos.4287 to 4289, 1499, 4290/Del/2018 said decision has held that where the AO having found that transaction of purchase and sale were bogus, made addition u/s 69A, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition without going into evidence on record. Referring to the decision of the H…

Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 169/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…out of enquiry related to source of investment, if details of such undisclosed investment is found during the course of search, addition has to be sustained. 23.3 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Malhotra, 363 ITR 195, she submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the ITA Nos.4287 to 4289, 1499, 4290/Del/2018 said decision has held that where the AO having found that transaction of purchase and sale were bogus, made addition u/s 69A, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition without going into evidence on record. Referring to the decision of the H…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hind Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Hind Industries Ltd. Circle 11(1) A-1, Phase-1, Okhla New Delhi Industrial Area New Delhi (Appellant) Aaach0870N (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

…g upon past history of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: " N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) 3 " N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT( 2016-TIOL-3166-H.C-AHM-IT) " CIT(A) Vs. Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi) 2014 363 ITR 195 " Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujrat) " CIT(A) Vs. Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001] 168 CTR 314 (Delhi) " Prem Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) " Prem Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT2018-TIOL-274-S.C-IT " Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2…

Mohan Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4304/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 & Ita No.4304/Del./2011 Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2002-03 And ITA No.4304/Del./2011 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Mohan Clothing Co. Vs. ACIT, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-5(1), 2E/22, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACM1374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Shri Raja Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.01.2020 Date of pronouncement 17.03.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: Out of the above two appeals, the appeal bearing ITA No. 6093/Del./2…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Star Retail Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised in CO and case laws relied on by assessee are dismissed

ITA 5334/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5334/Mum/2017 & Cross Objection No.– 01/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Sanghvi Star Retail Acit – 11(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1, Ground बिधम/ Plot No. 75, C-14, Cross Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Marol Midc, Vs. M. K. Road, Anderi (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aalcs5646N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Dr : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.10.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18 In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 10.04.17 For Assessment Year (In Short Ay) 2009-10. 2

For Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, AR
Section 132Section 133Section 143

…that addition on basis of undisclosed income cannot be restricted to 11 I.T.A. No. 5334/Mum/2017 M/s Sanghvi Star Retail Pvt. Ltd. a certain percentage, when the entire transaction was found as bogus 2. CIT Vs Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2014] 363 ITR 195 where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where Assessing Officer having found that transaction of purchase and sale were bogus, made addition under section 69A, Tribunal, was not justified in deleting addition without going into evidence on record 3. Viiay Proteins Ltd Vs ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) where Hon'ble Gujarat High Court…

Income Tax Officer -33(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil Govind Agre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ion of Rs.85,08,600/-. Appellant gets part relief.” 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in N K Proteins Ltd. v. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT), N K Proteins Ltd. v. CIT (2016-TIOL-3165- HC-AHM-IT), CIT v. Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2014] 363 ITR 195, Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 Shri Sunil Govind Agre (Gujarat), CIT v. La Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001] 168 CTR 314 (Delhi), Udit Kalra v. ITO Ward 50(1) of Hon’ble Delhi High Court ITA No. 220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019, Pr. CIT (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.…

Savitaben Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4402/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. VimalPunmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

…guishable from the above decision on merits. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in N K Proteins Ltd. v. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT), N K Proteins Ltd. v. CIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT), CIT v. Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2014] 363 ITR 195, Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat), CIT v. La Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001] 168 CTR 314 (Delhi), UditKalra v. ITO Ward 50(1) of Hon’ble Delhi High Court ITA No. 220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019, Pr. CIT (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. of…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Shankarlal L. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 427/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Shankarlal L. Jain, The Ito-18(3)(3), 577/579, Om Shanti Bhavan, (Erstwhile Ito 19(3)(3), Khatavi Building, Jss Rd, Earnest House, Opp. Chandanwadi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aabpj3924F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Ito-19(3)(3), Shri Shankarlal L. Jain, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Bokadia Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 219, Tardeo Road, 577/579, Om Shanti Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. Khatavi Building, Jss Rd, Opp. Chandanwadi, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aabpj3924F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Sanghvi (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi (CA)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 148

…ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT (2017 TIOL 23 SC-IT), Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. …., the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Malhotra 363 ITR 195 (Delhi), CIT vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Delhi) Pr. CIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 49 of 2018 and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. AICT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj). The Ld. DR further pointed out that the revenue has challenged the impugned order by filing cross appeal on the ground…

Shri Shankarlal L. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 178/MUM/2018[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Shankarlal L. Jain, The Ito-18(3)(3), 577/579, Om Shanti Bhavan, (Erstwhile Ito 19(3)(3), Khatavi Building, Jss Rd, Earnest House, Opp. Chandanwadi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aabpj3924F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Ito-19(3)(3), Shri Shankarlal L. Jain, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Bokadia Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 219, Tardeo Road, 577/579, Om Shanti Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. Khatavi Building, Jss Rd, Opp. Chandanwadi, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aabpj3924F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Sanghvi (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi (CA)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 148

…ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT (2017 TIOL 23 SC-IT), Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. …., the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Malhotra 363 ITR 195 (Delhi), CIT vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Delhi) Pr. CIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 49 of 2018 and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. AICT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj). The Ld. DR further pointed out that the revenue has challenged the impugned order by filing cross appeal on the ground…

Aggarwal Associates (Promoters) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result the ground No

ITA 787/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaraggarwal Associates Vs Dcit, Central Circle, (Promoters) Ltd., Ghaziabad 10, New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi- 92 (Pan: Aaaca2789D)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…issed by not directing the AO to restrict the disallowance of the impugned purchases. He relied upon the following case laws:- i) N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-1T) ii) N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 292 CTR 354 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. Arun Malhotra 363 ITR 195 (Del) iv) CIT vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del) v) Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gu}) vi) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (Allahabad). vi) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Gu}) 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities al…

M/S. Mansarovar Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Tehri Garhwal vs. ACIT, Haridwar

In the result the ground No

ITA 7022/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Mansarovar Infratech Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Garhwal Mandal Sales Pvt. Circle Haridwar Ltd.), Dhalwala, Tehsil Narendera Nagar, Tehri Garhwal Pan :Aaacg5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 147Section 234B

…3.2013 4.3 On the contrary, the learned DR supported the action of the authorities below and relied on the following judgments: i) N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) ii) N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 292 CTR 354 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. Arun Malhotra 363 ITR 195 (Del) iv) CIT vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del) v) Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj) vi) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj) 4.4 We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. During the instant year, it is a matter of record that assessee has declared sales of Rs. 9,99,91,142/- and purcha…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) 59. N K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT) 60. N.K.Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat)/[2017] 292 CTR 354 (Gujarat) 61. CIT vs. Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2014] 363 ITR 195 62. CIT Vs. La Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001]168 CTR 314 (Delhi) Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 63. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) 64. Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat) 4.1 On the issue of incriminating material, it was submitted that it was…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) 59. N K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT) 60. N.K.Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat)/[2017] 292 CTR 354 (Gujarat) 61. CIT vs. Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2014] 363 ITR 195 62. CIT Vs. La Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001]168 CTR 314 (Delhi) Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 63. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) 64. Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat) 4.1 On the issue of incriminating material, it was submitted that it was…

M/S. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2045/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2045/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-5, Phase-Iii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7255J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ca & Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-24, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…s. Therefore, the addition was rightly made by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in sustaining the impugned addition. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " N K Proteins Ltd. Vs CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) " CIT Vs Arun Malhotra (2014) 363 ITR 195 " Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs ACIT (2015) 58 Taxmann.com 44 (Guj.) " CIT Vs La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (Del.) " N K Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC- AHM-IT) " Shivnandan Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 347 (Del.) 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on…

Virendra Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 4 to 7 are partly allowed

ITA 2721/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishivirendra Kumar Gupta, Acit, Vs. Prop Sanjay Metal Udyog, Circle-39(1), 3858, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaapg4216E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 148

…DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities, relying on the following judicial pronouncement:- a. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd 2017-TIOL-253-H.C –IT) b. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd 292 ITR 444 c. CIT Vs. Arun Malhotra 363 ITR 195 d. NK Proteins Vs. CIT 2017-TIOL-23-HC–IT) Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. ACIT, e. Vijay Proteins Ltd Vs. ACIt 58 ITD 428 (Ahmadabad) f. CIT Vs. La Medica 117 Taxmann 628 ( Delhi) 14. The various decisions cited by the ld CIT DR as well as the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities were considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of…

Himanshu Girish Davey, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the above cited two assessees in

ITA 2064/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…d parties are discarded or ignored while considering the evidences on record, there is no other material before the AO to take an adverse view. Further, this view is fortified by the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ARUN MALHOTRA in [2014] 363 ITR 195 (Del). Being so, it is an appropriate to give an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the parties whose statements are relied upon, which are not provided in this case in hand. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to give an opportunity of cross examination and to decide thereupon. Since, I have remitted…

Hiren Girish Davey, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the above cited two assessees in

ITA 2063/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…d parties are discarded or ignored while considering the evidences on record, there is no other material before the AO to take an adverse view. Further, this view is fortified by the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ARUN MALHOTRA in [2014] 363 ITR 195 (Del). Being so, it is an appropriate to give an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the parties whose statements are relied upon, which are not provided in this case in hand. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to give an opportunity of cross examination and to decide thereupon. Since, I have remitted…

Hiren Pharma & Surgicals, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2007/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 07.11.2017
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…arties are discarded or ignored while considering the evidences on record, there is no other material before the AO to take an adverse view. Further, this view is fortified by the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ARUN MALHOTRA in [2014] 363 ITR 195 (Del). Being so, it is an appropriate to give an opportunity to the assessee to cross- examine the parties whose statements are relied upon, which are not provided in this case in hand. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to give an opportunity of cross 13 examination and to decide thereupon. Since, I have r…

Shri Arun Malhotra vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/303/2017HC Delhi17 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260

…parties, the following question is framed for determination: “Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) fail to adhere to the specific mandate issued to it by this Court in the previous order dated 25th November, 2013 in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (2014) 363 ITR 195(Del)?” 5. The background facts of the present case have been set-out in considerable detail in the previous order of this Court in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (supra) and need not be repeated in extenso. While setting aside the previous order of the ITAT dated 5th August 20008, this Court directed as follows: “24. In view of the aforesaid, we…