CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Ors.

250 ITR 531High Court2001#23981 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Ors.

Inder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3727/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S. K. Yadav & Sh. Prashant Maharishiinder Singh Vs Ito 94, Village Goela Khurd Ward-43(3) New Delhi New Delhi Bcrps3678G (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2018

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 68Section 69B

…ablish that higher consideration has been paid over and above the consideration indicated ill the sale documents. In support of this contention, we may refer to the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Ors.(2001)250 ITR 531 (Del) and CIT v. Shri Gulshan Kumar (2002) 175 CTR (Del) 416. In the instant case, the Revenue has not brought anything on record to form an opinion that some higher amount than the consideration declared by the assessee in the sale documents was passed over to the assessee. The AO has simply made reference to the valuation officer, who valued th…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…eliance was placed on this decision) • CIT V. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.: 87 ITR 407 (SC) • K. P. Varghese v. ITO: 131 ITR 597 (SC) • CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC) • CIT v. NandiniNopany: 230 ITR 679 (Cal.) • CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Others: 250 ITR 531 (Del.) • CIT V. Kami Singh 256 ITR 165 (Del) • CIT V. Smt. Sushila Devi 256 ITR 179 (Del.) • CIT v. Nilofer I. Singh: 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) • CIT v. Nilofer I Singh :309 ITR 233 (Del.) • Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO : 309 ITR 240 (Del.) • Sanjay Chawla v. ITO: 89 ITD 586 (Del.) • Bigjos Stores (P) Limited v. ACIT: 106 Taxman 127 (Del.) 21. Clarifying the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sirajuddin Qureshi, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5009/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. M.P.Rastogi, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ee has made payment of Rs.55,15,000/- from undisclosed sources, for purchase of the above said property, is totally baseless. In our view the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly relied on the following decisions and deleted the addition. i. CIT vs. Ms.Sushila Mittal (2001) 250 ITR 531 (Del) ii. KP Verghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) iii.George Handerson & Co. 66 ITR 622 (SC) iv. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. 87 ITR 407 (SC) v. Raman Bhattathripad 196 ITR 671 (Kerala) vi. CIT vs. Lionel Edwards Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 416 viii. ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Rakesh Ji Shah vs DCIT 53 TTJ 267 viii. Delhi ITAT in the case of DCIT C…

CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Ors. (250 ITR 531) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax