CIT v. Discovery Estates (P) Ltd.

356 ITR 159High Court2013#5786 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 133A Section 147 Section 148 Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 147(b)section 147(a)third party information section 43ca non application of mind section 40a(2)borrowed satisfaction live link entry operator rejection of books of account tangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Discovery Estates (P) Ltd.

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…oved by some evidence, aforesaid doubt cannot take place of proof. Until and unless such noting is corroborated by some material evidence, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in the income". - In the case of CIT vs. Discovery Estates (P) Ltd (2013)(356 ITR 159)(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has laid down following principles for making additions towards unaccounted sale receipts:- "The power of the assessing officer to raise valid queries on the basis of the facts or unusual features noticed by him must be conceded. The features noticed by him in the assessees' business certainly constitute a s…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKUR AGRAWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“A” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) &\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nI.T.A. No.5179/Mum/2024\n Assessment Year: 2012-13\nAssistant Commissioner | Vs. | Ankur Agrawal\nof Income Tax – 4(1)(1),\nMumbai.\n2401-2402,\n24th\nFloor, Anmol Pride\nOff, Patel Auto, Off S.\nV. Road, Goregaon,\nWest - 400062.\nPAN: AKОРА7201P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by\nShri. Vimal Punmiya\nRespondent by | Shri. Aditya Rai, SR. D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n11.06.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n16.06.2025\nORDER\nPer: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKUR AGRAWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off SV Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. PAN: AKOPA 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is dir…

SAVI REALTY HOLDING PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.140/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Savi Realty Holding Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcj0018K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…with cogent material that there is some under statement of the sale consideration. Reference can be made to the following judgments: a) K.P.Varghese Vs ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) b) CIT Vs P.V.Kalyan Sundram 164 Taxman 78(SC) c) CIT Vs Discovery Estate reported in 356 ITR 159(Del) 7.1 It is also settled position of law that a photocopy document cannot be made basis for making an addition in tax proceedings. Examining this issue by Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently in the case of PCIT Vs. Rashmi Raji Mehta 984 of 2019 vide its order dated 4.3.2024 in paras 17 & 18 the Hon’ble Court has observed as under : “ 17. Admit…

DCIT CC 3 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BKS GALAXY REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2276/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. 3

Section 133(6)Section 133A

…ved by some evidence, aforesaid doubt cannot take place of proof. Until and unless such noting is corroborated by some material evidence, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in the income. (b) In the case of CIT vs. Discovery Estates (P) Ltd (2013)(356 ITR 159)(Delhi), the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has M/s. BKS Galaxy Realtors LLP laid down following principles for making additions towards unaccounted sale receipts:- “The power of the assessing officer to raise valid queries on the basis of the facts or unusual features noticed by him must be conceded. The features noticed by him in the assessees' busin…

BKS GALAXY REALTORS LLP (ERSTWHILE BKS GALAXY REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1018/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Tribunal On The Issues Decided Against Each Of Them. 3

Section 133(6)Section 133A

…ved by some evidence, aforesaid doubt cannot take place of proof. Until and unless such noting is corroborated by some material evidence, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in the income. (b) In the case of CIT vs. Discovery Estates (P) Ltd (2013)(356 ITR 159)(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has 9 ITA No.1018/Mum/2024 & 2276/Mum/2024 M/s. BKS Galaxy Realtors LLP laid down following principles for making additions towards unaccounted sale receipts:- “The power of the assessing officer to raise valid queries on the basis of the facts or unusual features noticed by him must be conceded. The features…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 490/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…to tax the notional profit which the assessee would or could have earned, had the sales been made at the rates charged from unrelated parties." Reliance was also placed on decision by the hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi CIT Vs. Discovery Estates (P) i,td in 356 ITR 159(Delhi), stating 16 A.Y. 2013-2014 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao & C.O. 11/KOL/2021 (in ITA No. 490/KOL/2018) A.Y. 2013-2014 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao that "The AO could not make additions to sale price or profits, without wB^dence to show either that sales were sham transactions or that market prices f were in fact, paid by purchasers: no addition…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…ived unaccounted sale proceeds. The undisclosed sales cannot be worked out on the basis of this no addition required to be made in the absence of any evidence. We allow this fold of contention of assesse and delete the addition." i. Discovery Estate Pvt. Ltd. 356 ITR 159 (Delhi) Certain shops were sold to sister concerns at lower rate, the court held that if on further probe AO was not able to unearth any evidence of actual higher sale price , no addition can be made based on prevailing market price. j. A. Khadr Basha 232 taxman 434 (Karnataka) In this case purchases were effected from a concern falling u/s.40A(2…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5/RPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R

Section 145(3)Section 14A

…& Steel Pvt Ltd, ITA No. 139 to 141/BLPR/2010; (c) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288; (d) Income Tax Officer vs. W.D. Estate P. Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : 45 ITD 473; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 159 (Delhi); (f) Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax (2004) 83 TTJ (Jd) 770: (2004) 4 SOT 680 (Jd); (g) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 100 TTJ(Del)665 : (2006) 99 ITD 177(Del) by the Hon’ble ITAT, DELHI ”A” BENCH; (h) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of I…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 62/Rpr/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R

Section 14A

…& Steel Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.139 to 141/BLPR2010; (c) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 288; (d) Income Tax Officer vs. W.D. Estae P. Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : 45 ITD 473; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 159 (Delhi); (f) Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 83 TTJ (Jd) 770 : (2004) 4 SOT 680 (Jd); (g) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 100 TTJ (Del) 665 : (2006) 99 ITD (Del) by the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi “A” Bench; (h) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of I…

DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6936/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.6936/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Discovery Estates Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Ltd., Circle-7(2), 17-B, MGF House, Asaf Ali New Delhi Road, New Delhi PAN :AABCD4163D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 18.03.2021 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2017 passed by the learned Commission…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar

Section 132

…decision in Income Tax Officer Vs. W.D. Estate P Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom.) 143 : 45 ITD 473. 7.27 Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 18th February 2013 356 ITR 159 (Delhi). I do find considerable force in the submission of the appellant that no unrecorded asset/investment was found during the course of search. The significance of tangible disproportionate asset having been found as a result of search was emphasized in Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 83 TTJ (…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar

Section 132

DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5867/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Sapra & Shri Nitin Midha, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Anchal Khandelwal, Senior DR

Section 250

…-. 3. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has also dismissed the appeal by following the earlier year decisions passed in assessee’s own case by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 cited as 356 ITR 159. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. At the very…

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6th Floor, Circular Court, 8, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [PAN : AAHCS 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances by: Shri A.K. Gupta, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Usman, CIT DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding…

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6th Floor, Circular Court, 8, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [PAN : AAHCS 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances by: Shri A.K. Gupta, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Usman, CIT DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding…

M/S. KAILASH DWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 234BSection 24

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3034 & 3035/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 &2011-12) Vs. Kailash Dwellers Pvt. Ltd, DCIT, C/o. M/s. RRA Taxindia, Central Circle-4, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AACCK5224F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Aggarwal, CA Revenue by: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/01/2017 Date of pronouncement 28/03/2017 O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A. M. 1. These appeals filed by the assessee are dire…

ITO, WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TICKWELL COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1693/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACA

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “A”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] ITA.1693/Kol/2008 Assessment Year : 2005-06 I.T.O., Ward-9(1), . -versus- M/s.Tickwell Commercial Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCT9884D) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACA Date of Hearing : 15.02.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2016. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue directed against the order dated 10.06.2008 of CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2005-0…