CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

…has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 I…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

…has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 I…

Anil Kumar Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 456/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anil Kumar Garg, Vs Dcit, 17-A, Heritage Divine Circle-1 Apartments, Gyan Khand-Ii, Ghaziabad Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpg5598R Assessee By : Sh. Praveen K. Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Ashutosh Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.10.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Order As Passed The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Is Bad, Arbitrary & Erroneous In Law & On Facts Of The Case. Tax Demand Of Rs. 444350/- Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Is Also Wrong & Against The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal ) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O For Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Even Though Reasons Recorded By The A.O. Were Valid & Sustainable On Facts Of Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal ) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs,1014550/-Even Though Section 50-C Was Not Applicable On The Appellant (Purchaser Of Property).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 456/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anil Kumar Garg, Vs DCIT, 17-A, Heritage Divine Circle-1 Apartments, Gyan Khand-II, Ghaziabad Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPG5598R Assessee by : Sh. Praveen K. Agarwal, CA & Sh. Ashutosh Mohan, CA Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2017 of ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad. 2. Following grounds have been rai…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…ave gained a higher price which in fact was not received. Reference can be also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay versus M/s Godavari Corporation Limited, [1993] 200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT versus Dinesh Jain, HUF, [2013] 352 ITR 629 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Late Sh. Gulshan Kumar (Decd.) through L.R., [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Del). 25. As noted above, Section 52 of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have referred to the afor…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…ave gained a higher price which in fact was not received. Reference can be also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay versus M/s Godavari Corporation Limited, [1993] 200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT versus Dinesh Jain, HUF, [2013] 352 ITR 629 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Late Sh. Gulshan Kumar (Decd.) through L.R., [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Del). 25. As noted above, Section 52 of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have referred to the afor…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. Delhi Vocational School Society, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue on solitary ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito(Exemptions), Vs. Delhi Vocational School Trust Ward-Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Society, Laxmu Nagar, Distt. Centre, C/O. Summer Fields School, New Delhi Kailash Colony, New Delhi Pan:Aabcs4104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…not have any such material before him, which could form the basis for reference being made to the DVO u/s 142A of the Act, as has been rightly held by the Ld. CIT (A)." Page 6 of 10 5. This Court had in the decision reported as CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2013] 352 ITR 629/[2012] 211 Taxman 23/25 taxmann.com 550 and connected cases occasioned to consider an identical question. After noticing the relevant provision, i.e. Section 69B, the Court noticed in paragraph 9 as follows: — '9. A "finding" obviously should rest on evidence. In the present case, it is common ground that no incriminating material was seized dur…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri S.K. Sethi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is jettisoned

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA No. 1440/Del /2010 Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Shri S.K. Sethi Circle – 33(1) 18/13, W.E.A Karol Bagh New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAUPS 5020 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 10.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2016 Assessee by : Shri L.N. Malik, CA Shri Satish Khosla, Adv. Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Department by : Ms. Anima Bernwal Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J UDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the revenue is dire…

Commissioner of Income Tax VII vs. Shri Karan Khandelwal

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

…Choudhary [2008] 305 ITR 245 (Del), CIT v. Prem Nath Nagpal 214 CTR 51 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT v. Kishan Kumar and Others [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj.) and CIT v. Dr. S.Bharti [2002] 254 ITR 261 (Del). In Ved Prakash (supra) during the course of search at the residence of respondent two MoUs were recovered. The assessee admitted signatures on those MoUs but denied having received the amount mentioned in the documents. The Assessing Officer held that denial by the Assessee was only with a view to escape the payment of tax liabil…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

…Choudhary [2008] 305 ITR 245 (Del), CIT v. Prem Nath Nagpal 214 CTR 51 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT v. Kishan Kumar and Others [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj.) and CIT v. Dr. S.Bharti [2002] 254 ITR 261 (Del). In Ved Prakash (supra) during the course of search at the residence of respondent two MoUs were recovered. The assessee admitted signatures on those MoUs but denied having received the amount mentioned in the documents. The Assessing Officer held that denial by the Assessee was only with a view to escape the payment of tax liabil…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

…Choudhary [2008] 305 ITR 245 (Del), CIT v. Prem Nath Nagpal 214 CTR 51 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT v. Kishan Kumar and Others [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj.) and CIT v. Dr. S.Bharti [2002] 254 ITR 261 (Del). In Ved Prakash (supra) during the course of search at the residence of respondent two MoUs were recovered. The assessee admitted signatures on those MoUs but denied having received the amount mentioned in the documents. The Assessing Officer held that denial by the Assessee was only with a view to escape the payment of tax liabil…