CIT v. Gulshan Kumar

257 ITR 703High Court2002#4326 most cited

What is CIT v. Gulshan Kumar authority for?

The assessing officer must have evidence to show that the actual sale consideration was greater than the amount declared in the sale deed before re-working capital gains or disallowing a claimed loss. Cases where shares were not sold below purchase price or land was sold at its registered value are not grounds for reassessment without such evidence.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gulshan Kumar · 257 ITR 703 · sale of shares · private limited company · capital gain · claim loss · understated sale consideration · declared value · evidence of higher consideration

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 156dumb documentssection 132(4a)reasoned orderdocuments seizedincome-tax officerunexplained investmentsection 153cincriminating materialsection 271(1)(c)undisclosed income

Judgments citing CIT v. Gulshan Kumar

Atul Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 206/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…(SC) [para 18] wherein it was held that there must be evidence to show that the actual consideration was more than the consideration shown in the books. He submitted that this preposition is also held in the following cases “ a. CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002} 257 ITR 703 (Delhi High Court)-para 21 b. CIT v. Naresh Khattar, HUF [2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi High Court)- para 8 19 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 c. JCITv. Sri Bithalnath Malia ITA No. 15/KOL/2013 (Kolkata Trlbunal)-para 10 d. DCIT v. Smt Nirmal Rani ITA No. 2786/ DEL /2010 (Delhi ITAT)- para 15 to 22 e. Dilavar S…

Atul Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 205/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…(SC) [para 18] wherein it was held that there must be evidence to show that the actual consideration was more than the consideration shown in the books. He submitted that this preposition is also held in the following cases “ a. CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002} 257 ITR 703 (Delhi High Court)-para 21 b. CIT v. Naresh Khattar, HUF [2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi High Court)- para 8 19 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 c. JCITv. Sri Bithalnath Malia ITA No. 15/KOL/2013 (Kolkata Trlbunal)-para 10 d. DCIT v. Smt Nirmal Rani ITA No. 2786/ DEL /2010 (Delhi ITAT)- para 15 to 22 e. Dilavar S…

Atul Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1395/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…(SC) [para 18] wherein it was held that there must be evidence to show that the actual consideration was more than the consideration shown in the books. He submitted that this preposition is also held in the following cases “ a. CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002} 257 ITR 703 (Delhi High Court)-para 21 b. CIT v. Naresh Khattar, HUF [2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi High Court)- para 8 19 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 c. JCITv. Sri Bithalnath Malia ITA No. 15/KOL/2013 (Kolkata Trlbunal)-para 10 d. DCIT v. Smt Nirmal Rani ITA No. 2786/ DEL /2010 (Delhi ITAT)- para 15 to 22 e. Dilavar S…

DCIT Central Circle -28, New Delhi vs. Atul Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1931/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…(SC) [para 18] wherein it was held that there must be evidence to show that the actual consideration was more than the consideration shown in the books. He submitted that this preposition is also held in the following cases “ a. CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002} 257 ITR 703 (Delhi High Court)-para 21 b. CIT v. Naresh Khattar, HUF [2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi High Court)- para 8 19 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 c. JCITv. Sri Bithalnath Malia ITA No. 15/KOL/2013 (Kolkata Trlbunal)-para 10 d. DCIT v. Smt Nirmal Rani ITA No. 2786/ DEL /2010 (Delhi ITAT)- para 15 to 22 e. Dilavar S…

ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Rajiv Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1164/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…(SC) [para 18] wherein it was held that there must be evidence to show that the actual consideration was more than the consideration shown in the books. He submitted that this preposition is also held in the following cases “ a. CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002} 257 ITR 703 (Delhi High Court)-para 21 b. CIT v. Naresh Khattar, HUF [2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi High Court)- para 8 19 ITA No.1931/Del./2020 ITA No.1164/Del./2020 ITA Nos.205 & 206/Del/2021 c. JCITv. Sri Bithalnath Malia ITA No. 15/KOL/2013 (Kolkata Trlbunal)-para 10 d. DCIT v. Smt Nirmal Rani ITA No. 2786/ DEL /2010 (Delhi ITAT)- para 15 to 22 e. Dilavar S…

M/S.R.S.Rangadas vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, M/s. Rohan Developers Central Circle-8(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.658, 112-122 Hira Bhavan, 6th Floor, Vs. Raja Ram Mohan Roy Aayakar Bhavan, Road, M.K. Road, Prathan Samaj, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400 004 PAN: AACCA7661A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, M/s. Rohan Developers Central Circle-8(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.658, 112-122 Hira Bhavan, 6th Floor, Vs. Raja Ram Mohan Roy Aayakar Bhavan, Road, M.K. Road, Prathan Samaj, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400 004 PAN: AACCA7661A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla, New Delhi

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3823/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Bahel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142ASection 48

…learned Commissioner of Income-tax tax (Appeals)." 10.12 We further find that similar views were taken in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure(P.) Ltd, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), CIT vs Gulshan Kumar [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Delhi), CIT v. P .V. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC) Subhash Chand Chopra v. Asst. CIT [2005] 92 TTJ (Delhi) 15 1087) and K.P Varghese. v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 10.13 Under these circumstances, We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has erred in referring the matter to the DVO and consequently the DVO's report on the val…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Urvashi Talla, New Delhi

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3820/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Bahel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142ASection 48

…learned Commissioner of Income-tax tax (Appeals)." 10.12 We further find that similar views were taken in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure(P.) Ltd, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), CIT vs Gulshan Kumar [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Delhi), CIT v. P .V. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC) Subhash Chand Chopra v. Asst. CIT [2005] 92 TTJ (Delhi) 15 1087) and K.P Varghese. v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 10.13 Under these circumstances, We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has erred in referring the matter to the DVO and consequently the DVO's report on the val…

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…ed. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman 23/[2013] 352 ITR 629 and CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002] 123 Taxman 111/257 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 aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgment was referred to and distinguished by the tribunal in the…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does no…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does no…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does no…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does no…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does no…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does no…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…ed. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman 23/[2013] 352 ITR 629 and CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002] 123 Taxman 111/257 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 aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgment was referred to and distinguished by the tribunal in the…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…ed. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman 23/[2013] 352 ITR 629 and CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002] 123 Taxman 111/257 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 aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgment was referred to and distinguished by the tribunal in the…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/405/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

…me 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 aforesaid judgment in K.P. Verghese (supra) as this judgment was referred to and distinguished by the tribunal in…

CIT v. Gulshan Kumar (257 ITR 703) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax