CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573High Court2016#3 most cited

What is CIT v. Kabul Chawla authority for?

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

3,235

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kabul Chawla · Kabul Chawla · section 153A · section 132 · incriminating material · search assessment · non-abated years · scope of assessment · additions · undisclosed income

Also reported as

61 Taxmann.com 412234 Taxmann 300281 CTR 45

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Kabul Chawla

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2015/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 2015/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2016/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs M/S L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-5, Tu-70, Pitam Pura, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl1304J Co No. 05/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Co No. 06/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Tu-70, Pitam Pura, Central Circle-5, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl1304J Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Seema Raj, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Seema Raj, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…in the absence of any incriminating material the CO No. 05 & 06/Del/2015 L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd. additions made were not justified. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla reported at (2016) 380 ITR 573 14. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the share applicant and the depositors. Therefore, the AO rightly made the addition and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. It was further submitted that…