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

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/406/2005HC 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…

Emami Indrastructure Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 880/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Counsel, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…AO was fully justified in not accepting sale of shares of at Rs. 2100/- per share and reworking capital gain by taking sale price of Zandu Reality Pvt. Ltd share at Rs 3989.80 per share. The decision of Delhi High Court in the case reported in 328 ITR 7 and 257 ITR 703 relied upon by the appellant company relates to sale of shares of a private limited company and in these cases shares were not sold tit less than purchase price on last day of accounting veer to claim the loss. These companies were also not listed on stock exchange. Furthermore, the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. I.P. Choudhari 328 ITR 7(Delhi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…The principle laid down by Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Verghese 131 ITR 597 has been considered by Delhi High Court in number of cases and it may be appropriate to make reference to decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gulshan Kumar[2002] 257 ITR 703. In view of the settled legal position and in the absence of any evidence regarding non-disclosure of full value of consideration, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and same is confirmed. 146. Ground no. 33 is against deletion of disallowance of Rs.65,08,264/- on account of claim of expenses in respect of which bills are not in the na…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…The principle laid down by Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Verghese 131 ITR 597 has been considered by Delhi High Court in number of cases and it may be appropriate to make reference to decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gulshan Kumar[2002] 257 ITR 703. In view of the settled legal position and in the absence of any evidence regarding non-disclosure of full value of consideration, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and same is confirmed. 146. Ground no. 33 is against deletion of disallowance of Rs.65,08,264/- on account of claim of expenses in respect of which bills are not in the na…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…show that the sale consideration was understated or the assessee received anything directly or indirectly over and the above the declared value. Thus, the decision from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ratio laid down therein CIT vs Gulshan Kumar (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs P. V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC). The relevant portion from the order is reproduced hereunder:- 9 M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. “3. The respondent assessee vide a registered sale deed dt. 26th Oct., 1998 purchased cert…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh.Smt. Deepti Talla, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1563/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148

…XMAN 203 (SC). (iii). ITO vs. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta dated 4.5.2008 in ITA no. 4295/Del./2005 (ITAT Delhi Bench) (iv). Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Ltd, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi). (v). CIT vs Gulshan Kumar [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Delhi). (vi). CIT v. P .V. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC). (vii). Subhash Chand Chopra v. Asst. CIT [2005] 92 TTJ (Delhi) 1087). (viii). K.P Varghese. v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 7. On the strength of above decisions, the ld. CIT(A) further observed as under : “Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer has erre…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Divya Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

ITA 4315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Mohsin Alam, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4315/Del/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle-03, VS. Smt. Divya Jain, Room No. 355, 3rd floor, C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Jhnadewalan Extension, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) New Delhi – 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. No. 355/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 4315/Del/2011) A.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Divya Jain, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-03, 3rd C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Room No. 355, floor, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) Jhnadewalan Extension, New…