CIT v. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala

331 ITR 510High Court2011#4570 most cited
26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BESection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)search and seizuresection 132section 15section 13personbusinessdocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala

NARESH BALYAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Naresh Balyan Vs Acit 125-A, Shyam Park Central Circle-16 Nawada, Uttam Nagar Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110059 Delhi Pan-Adqpb8836L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jasmeet Singh, Adv. & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2024 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 292CSection 69ASection 69C

…he basis of loose sheets found in the course of search unless the assessee has successfully disproved the entries made in the loose sheets. To buttress her contentions the Ld.CIT DR referred to the following judgments; (a) CIT vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi); (b) CIT vs Ambika Appalam Depot [2012] 340 ITR 497 (Madras); and (c) Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs CIT(Appeals), Ranchi [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand) 10.3 The Ld.CIT DR submitted that the presumptions raised under s. 132(4A) of the Act on seizure of such loose sheets is automatic and the onus squarely lies on the assessee to rebut tha…

RAJENDER SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3434/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…d, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon catena of judgments. The list of which are as under: 1. CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann. Com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 2. Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs. CIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 3. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 280 CTR 209 (Kerala) 4. Ashok Kumar Vs. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342…

M/S. SIR SHADILAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…on between the seized material and the books of account, on which reliance was placed by the AO, was not sufficient for the purpose of making the additions;” 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aqqarwala [2019] taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclose…

M/S. SIR SHADILAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5727/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…on between the seized material and the books of account, on which reliance was placed by the AO, was not sufficient for the purpose of making the additions;” 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aqqarwala [2019] taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclose…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4058/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…een the seized material and the books of account, on which reliance was placed by the AO, was not sufficient for the purpose of making the additions;” 2- CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclo…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…een the seized material and the books of account, on which reliance was placed by the AO, was not sufficient for the purpose of making the additions;” 2- CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclo…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2600/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…een the seized material and the books of account, on which reliance was placed by the AO, was not sufficient for the purpose of making the additions;” 2- CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclo…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…een the seized material and the books of account, on which reliance was placed by the AO, was not sufficient for the purpose of making the additions;” 2- CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclo…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1611/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…laimed to have been filed on 15.1.2013 but the verification of the record by the department falsifies the same. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of CIT vs. Sonal Construction, 2012-TIOL-851-HC- Del; CIT vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510(Del); and Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 379 ITR 244 (Kerala) for the proposition that when the assessee had not discharged the burden as regards source from which the investment was made, the investment in property was an unexplained investment and adding the same to the income of the assessee is not improper. 26. We have gone thro…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1610/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…laimed to have been filed on 15.1.2013 but the verification of the record by the department falsifies the same. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of CIT vs. Sonal Construction, 2012-TIOL-851-HC- Del; CIT vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510(Del); and Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 379 ITR 244 (Kerala) for the proposition that when the assessee had not discharged the burden as regards source from which the investment was made, the investment in property was an unexplained investment and adding the same to the income of the assessee is not improper. 26. We have gone thro…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1609/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…laimed to have been filed on 15.1.2013 but the verification of the record by the department falsifies the same. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of CIT vs. Sonal Construction, 2012-TIOL-851-HC- Del; CIT vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510(Del); and Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 379 ITR 244 (Kerala) for the proposition that when the assessee had not discharged the burden as regards source from which the investment was made, the investment in property was an unexplained investment and adding the same to the income of the assessee is not improper. 26. We have gone thro…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1608/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…laimed to have been filed on 15.1.2013 but the verification of the record by the department falsifies the same. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of CIT vs. Sonal Construction, 2012-TIOL-851-HC- Del; CIT vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510(Del); and Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 379 ITR 244 (Kerala) for the proposition that when the assessee had not discharged the burden as regards source from which the investment was made, the investment in property was an unexplained investment and adding the same to the income of the assessee is not improper. 26. We have gone thro…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIKAS JAIN, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 4075/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 292C

…the following judicial precedents in support of the contentions of the Revenue as under:- 1. CIT Vs. Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jhankhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4248/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…or of the assesse company Sh. Rajesh Kanodia in terms of sections 132(4A) & 292C of I.T. Act: 1. CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Pa…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4247/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…or of the assesse company Sh. Rajesh Kanodia in terms of sections 132(4A) & 292C of I.T. Act: 1. CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Pa…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4246/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…or of the assesse company Sh. Rajesh Kanodia in terms of sections 132(4A) & 292C of I.T. Act: 1. CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Pa…

VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 3669/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…or of the assesse company Sh. Rajesh Kanodia in terms of sections 132(4A) & 292C of I.T. Act: 1. CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Pa…

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…T 373 ITR 9 (Del.) xix. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Del.) xx. M/s Punjab Sind Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2017- TIOL- 83-SC-IT) xxi. CIT Sonal Construction (2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT) xxii. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510 (Del.) xxiii. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand) xxiv. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 244 (Ker.) xxv. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT (2016) 386 ITR 342 (Patna) xxvi. Baldev Raj Vs CIT (2010) Taxmann.com 335 (P&H) xxvii. CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del.) xxviii. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Lt…

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…T 373 ITR 9 (Del.) xix. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Del.) xx. M/s Punjab Sind Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2017- TIOL- 83-SC-IT) xxi. CIT Sonal Construction (2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT) xxii. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510 (Del.) xxiii. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand) xxiv. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 244 (Ker.) xxv. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT (2016) 386 ITR 342 (Patna) xxvi. Baldev Raj Vs CIT (2010) Taxmann.com 335 (P&H) xxvii. CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del.) xxviii. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Lt…

DCIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. GODWIN CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD., MEERUT

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4012/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2005-06 & Ay: 2006-07 Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Central Circle A-151, Defence Colony Bhaisali Ground Mawana Road Meerut Meerut Pan: Aaefg 1843 R Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Dcit, Central Circle Vs. Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. & Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.A. Department By : Sh.Sanjit Singh, Cit, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2018

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. And Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Sanjit Singh, CIT, D.R
Section 292CSection 68

…on 292C of the Act. It has been submitted by revenue that assessee should have produced other documents to disprove the entries made in the loose sheets and while saying so he placed reliance upon the following decisions: CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs. CIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 328(Jharkhand) Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 379 ITR 244 (Kerala) Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 342 (Patna) Page 9 of 19 ITA Nos. 3226/Del/15 & 3227/Del/15 M/s Godwin Construction P Ltd. vs. ACIT A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 ITA Nos. 4010 – 4011 & 4012/Del/15 DCIT vs. M/…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2