CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram

282 ITR 259High Court2006#1018 most cited

What is CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram authority for?

Seized loose sheets or unsigned documents discovered during a search operation possess admissible evidentiary value and can form the basis for income additions if corroborated by external evidence, such as matching payments, business records, or corroborative statements.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram · 282 ITR 259 · Section 132 · Section 153A · Section 292C · seized loose sheets · unsigned documents · evidentiary value · corroboration · additions to income · on-money transactions · unexplained cash

Also reported as

155 Taxmann 454

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 69CSection 69BSection 115BBESection 153C

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorytransferee companysection 292csection 131(1a)section 158bdsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 65bsection 65panchnamasection 34on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram

ABDUL LATHIEF MAHAMMED ARIF,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-5(2), COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1853/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.N.Rajan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54F

…be assessed in the hands of the assessee, as the property was jointly owned and the assessee’s share was only 40%. Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including: • Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259) (Mad) • CIT v. Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (215 CTR 489) (Raj) • Paramjit Singh v. ITO (P&H HC) • ITO v. W.D. Estate (P) Ltd. (45 ITD 473) (Bom) 5. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was contended that: • The seized loose sheet clearly reflected the actual sale consideration. • The purchaser had admitted payment of cash durin…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and find no justifiable reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). 69. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259). In the said case, a search operation was conducted on the assessee, during which it was noticed that the assessee had purchased certain land which was registered for a consideration of Rs.4.10 lakhs. The Assessing Officer recorded the statement of the seller, wherein the seller admitted that the actual consideration received was Rs.34.35 lakhs,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GNANAGURU LAVANYA, TIRUPUR

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…Z आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [PAN: ABIPL-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…e with Corroboration: It is settled law that unsigned documents, if corroborated by external evidence (such as statement of the broker, matching with business records, decoding logic), can be relied upon for making additions. [Ref: CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram 282 ITR 259 (Mad)] 3. Statement of Broker Corroborates Revenue's Case: Shri Nikhil Goyal admitted that he facilitated cash transactions on brokerage basis and voluntarily surrendered his commission income. This corroboration lends authenticity to the documents. 4. Assessee Did Not Seek Cross-Examination During Assessment: The assessee never made a formal req…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 498/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायापीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR \n\nडा० एस. सीथललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कमल्श जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,\n\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nMahendra Kumar Goyal\nWard No. 2, Shahpura Road\nNeem Ka Thana, Sikar\nबनाम\nVs.\nACIT/DCIT\nCentral Circle-03,\nJaipur\n\nस्थापी लेखा सं./GIR No.: ACFPG0306G\nअपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रترथी/Respondent\n\nन…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

ITA 3015/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025
For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.3015/Chny/2024 & Cross-Objection No.4/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. v. Mr.Pinnathevar Palanichamy, 379, Sarveswarar Kovil Street, Anna Nagar, Madurai-625 020. [PAN: ACYPP 6565 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Department by Assessee by : Mr.Shivanand…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI vs. VAVIPALAYAM SELVARAJU THENNERASU, NAMAKKAL

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1153/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

…e on various judicial decisions to support the submissions. The same include the decision of Jabalpur Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan (295 ITR 352) and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalayanasundaram (282 ITR 259). 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that Ld. AO has considered the narrations in the loose sheet to be true and genuine on the fact that the loose sheets contained both cheque and cash payments and the cheque payments were exactly matching with the sale deed. It was finally concluded that the noting mentioned in the loose sheet were genuine in nat…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. AMUTHA THENNARASU, NAMAKKAL

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1152/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

…e on various judicial decisions to support the submissions. The same include the decision of Jabalpur Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan (295 ITR 352) and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalayanasundaram (282 ITR 259). 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that Ld. AO has considered the narrations in the loose sheet to be true and genuine on the fact that the loose sheets contained both cheque and cash payments and the cheque payments were exactly matching with the sale deed. It was finally concluded that the noting mentioned in the loose sheet were genuine in nat…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, DELHI, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2753/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, DELHI, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD,, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2752/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, DELHI, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2751/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COPANY PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2473/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2472/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2324/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2323/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2322/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…unal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose." 35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 282 ITR 259 (Madras) has held as under : "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and, inter alia, held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1991] I31 ITR ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving ac…

Showing 1–20 of 108 · Page 1 of 6