CIT v. Lalit Bahsin

290 ITR 245High Court#18023 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

Judgments citing CIT v. Lalit Bahsin

JAYAKRISHNA NANDAMURI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1793/HYD/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1793/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1996-97) Shri Jayakrishna Vs. Dy. Cit Nandamuri Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaxpn3135E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate A. HarishFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

…ents: (a) 454 ITR 595 (SC) D.N. Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (b) 419 ITR 132 (Guj) – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (c) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi) -Pepsi Foods P. Ltd Vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax (d) 290 ITR 245 (Delhi) –CIT Vs. Lalit Bhasin (e) 338 ITR 485 -CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (f) KP Varghese Case Hon'ble Supreme Court in 131 ITR 597 (g) ITA No. 55/Hyd/2015 –G Mahesh Babu Vs. DCIT. 8. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has failed to satisfactor…

M/S. MAYA TRADECOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…icular matter of the assessee M/s. Maya Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. (PAN-AAGCM3527K) To substantiate our plea relating to your 263 notice, we have relied on the following case laws for your honour’s kind perusal. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT vs Lalit Bahsin 290 ITR 245 (Del) where the Delhi High Court deleted the addition on the ground that AO arrived at conclusion primarily on imaginative basis and conjectures rather than on the basis of any record or books of account and hence deleted the addition. Reliance is also placed in the case of Omega Estates V. IT0 106 ITD 427 (Chennai) where the Chennai Bench of IT…

M/S. GREEN TOUCH VINCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1028/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263

…matter of the assessee M/s.Green Touch Vincom Pvt. Ltd. (PAN- AAADCG 9317N). To substantiate our plea relating to Your 263 notice, we have relied on the following case laws for Your Honour's kind perusal. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Lalit Bahsin 290 ITR 245 (Del) where the Delhi High Court deleted the addition on the ground that A.O. arrived at conclusion primarily on imaginative basis and conjectures rather than on the basis of any record or books of account and hence deleted the addition. Reliance is also placed in the case of Omega Estates V s. ITO 106 .ITD 427 (Chennai) where the Chennai Bench o…

KARTICK BOSE ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1027/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263

…this particular matter of the assessee Shri Kartick Bose (P AN- AOMPB2179K). To substantiate our plea relating to Your 263 notice, we have relied on the following case laws for Your Honour's kind perusal. Reliance is placed in the case of CIT v. Lalit Bahsin 290 ITR 245 (Del) where the Delhi High Court deleted the addition on the ground that A.O. arrived at conclusion primarily on imaginative basis and conjectures rather than on the basis of any record or books of account and hence deleted the addition. Reliance is also placed in the case of Omega Estates V s. ITO 106 .ITD 427 (Chennai) where the Chennai Bench o…

ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ATUL PRAVINCHANDRA PAREKH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito-15(3)(1), Shri Atul Pravinchandra Room No.106, Parekh बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, 303, Shobha Apartment, 3Rd Vs. Tardeo Road, Floor, S.No. Road, Mumbai-400007 Tambe Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Ambpp5491R

Section 143(1)Section 69B

…at. In such a situation, we note that no evidence was brought on record either to prove the real consideration or the amount paid was more than the amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, the decision in CIT vs Lalit Bhasin 290 ITR 245 (Delhi) supports our view. The flat was directly purchased by the assessee from the developers. No proof was ever brought on record by the Assessing Officer that the assessee actually paid extra money or reflected in the accounts of the assessee and the builder. The valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer even is more than/double of the stamp…