CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal

335 ITR 572High Court2011#3686 most cited

What is CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal authority for?

The revenue bears the primary burden of proof to establish understatement or concealment of income. Only after the revenue discharges this burden can the Assessing Officer rely on valuation reports.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal · Section 69B · burden of proof · understatement of income · concealment of income · revenue's onus · Assessing Officer · valuation report

Also reported as

200 Taxmann 18812 Taxmann.com 88

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 127Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 154
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 132(5)illegal paymentsection 100section 131(1)(d)section 38section 153(c)(1)section 55asection 142(2)section 94circle ratesection 142a

Judgments citing CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rama Shankar Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rajesh Rani Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Income Tax Department vs. Payal Khemka, K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act to establish that claim of the assessee since from the beginning i.e. during investigation proceedings and during the course of assessment proceedings that there is u…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act to establish that claim of the assessee since from the beginning i.e. during investigation proceedings and during the course of assessment proceedings that there is u…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neelam Arya, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1533/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Central Circle -25, Vs. Neelam Arya Room No. 317, 3Rd Floor, 7, Neelanchal, Bandh E-2, Ara Centre, Road,Chandanhulla, Jhandewalan Extension Chattarpur, New Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110074 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adtpa6583A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69B

…found to be the author of the document and therefore the AO failed to discharge its burden cast upon him under Section 69B of the Act. He mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal reported in 335 ITR 572 and the judgment passed in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. reported in 454 ITR 212. P a g e | 7 Neelam Arya (AY: 2010-11) 7. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition observed as follows: 5.4 1 have co…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…ing Officer may be relaxed in caseswhere there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the preciseextent thereof is lacking.' 3 GayatriEnterprise 29. The Delhi HighCourt in the case of CIT v. Bajrang Lal 12- v. Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 31 Income-tax taxmann.com 88 held as under: Officer, Ward "5. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the revenue 1(2)4 [2020] 116 submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the taxmann.com 359 addition of 99,33,000/- as undisclosed income of the (Gujarat) respondent-assessee under Section 69B of the Act, 196…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…8 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…8 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…8 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…8 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT…

Anwar M. Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2669/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…ion of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v.Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 / [2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v.Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 / [2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi)(Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lalal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572 / 200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 / 7 Taxman 13 has been followed.” Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the caser of CIT, Chenai vs VummudiAmaren…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Usha Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3862/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…36 CTR (SC) 226, ITO vs. Arasen Subiah (2009) 20 DTR (Mad) 113, Page 11 of 22 ITA No. 3826/Del/2015 & ors Asst. CIT Vs. M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Partap Singh Amro Rajinder Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT vs. and Bajrang Ram Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572. c) The Hon'ble Court in the said case of CIT vs. Bajrang Ran Bansal (Supra) has also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226, wherein it has been held that the report of the valuation officer is not information per se. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the same cas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3860/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…36 CTR (SC) 226, ITO vs. Arasen Subiah (2009) 20 DTR (Mad) 113, Page 11 of 22 ITA No. 3826/Del/2015 & ors Asst. CIT Vs. M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Partap Singh Amro Rajinder Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT vs. and Bajrang Ram Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572. c) The Hon'ble Court in the said case of CIT vs. Bajrang Ran Bansal (Supra) has also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226, wherein it has been held that the report of the valuation officer is not information per se. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the same cas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3859/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…36 CTR (SC) 226, ITO vs. Arasen Subiah (2009) 20 DTR (Mad) 113, Page 11 of 22 ITA No. 3826/Del/2015 & ors Asst. CIT Vs. M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Partap Singh Amro Rajinder Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT vs. and Bajrang Ram Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572. c) The Hon'ble Court in the said case of CIT vs. Bajrang Ran Bansal (Supra) has also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226, wherein it has been held that the report of the valuation officer is not information per se. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the same cas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3858/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…36 CTR (SC) 226, ITO vs. Arasen Subiah (2009) 20 DTR (Mad) 113, Page 11 of 22 ITA No. 3826/Del/2015 & ors Asst. CIT Vs. M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Partap Singh Amro Rajinder Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT vs. and Bajrang Ram Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572. c) The Hon'ble Court in the said case of CIT vs. Bajrang Ran Bansal (Supra) has also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226, wherein it has been held that the report of the valuation officer is not information per se. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the same cas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…36 CTR (SC) 226, ITO vs. Arasen Subiah (2009) 20 DTR (Mad) 113, Page 11 of 22 ITA No. 3826/Del/2015 & ors Asst. CIT Vs. M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Partap Singh Amro Rajinder Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT vs. and Bajrang Ram Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572. c) The Hon'ble Court in the said case of CIT vs. Bajrang Ran Bansal (Supra) has also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226, wherein it has been held that the report of the valuation officer is not information per se. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the same cas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3826/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…36 CTR (SC) 226, ITO vs. Arasen Subiah (2009) 20 DTR (Mad) 113, Page 11 of 22 ITA No. 3826/Del/2015 & ors Asst. CIT Vs. M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Partap Singh Amro Rajinder Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT vs. and Bajrang Ram Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572. c) The Hon'ble Court in the said case of CIT vs. Bajrang Ran Bansal (Supra) has also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226, wherein it has been held that the report of the valuation officer is not information per se. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the same cas…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 193/RPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…dered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived." (emphasis supplied) (ii) Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88, has held as under (headnote) : "The primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income was on the Revenue and it was only when such burden was discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. The opinion of the District Valuation Offic…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 192/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…dered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived." (emphasis supplied) (ii) Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88, has held as under (headnote) : "The primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income was on the Revenue and it was only when such burden was discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. The opinion of the District Valuation Offic…