CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram

282 ITR 259High Court2006#1004 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 366,005 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

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 167/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 166/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 165/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 164/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 131/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 130/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 124/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai. [PAN ABJPN 6222H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 &…

Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…but the Tribunal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose.” 11.2. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2006) 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 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the reve…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Kundan Singh, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1797/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…but the Tribunal rightly held that those were independent transactions and had nothing to do with the memorandums of understanding. No substantial question of law arose.” 11.2. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2006) 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 597 / 7 Taxman 13 held that the burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the reve…

Theacit, Cir-1(1), Ekm, Ernakulam vs. Sri.E.M.Johny, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.Mathai Xavier, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.Jose Mathew, M/S.E.V.Mthai & Sons, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.E.M.Paul, Edakattukudiyil, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

The ITO, WD-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.Tomy Mathew Partner of Mathai Sons, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

The ITO, WD-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.E.J.Sony, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

The ITO, Ward-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.Martin Johny, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

Sri.Essa Ismail Sait, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), Ernakulam

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

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…itself. (iv) Finally, the statement recorded by DDIT(Inv.-II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 cannot be the basis to sustain the addition since it is not supported by corroborative material. 13. Even otherwise, in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), the Madras High Court held as under: “Assessment was made on the assessee under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998. The assessee has purchased land on October 26, 1998. The land was registered for Rs.4.10 lakhs. During the course of the search certain notings had been found. The assessee…

Smt.K.B.Sony, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69

…(i) DCIT vs. K. Najimunnisa & K. Sajida in ITA Nos. 794&795/HYD/2010 dated 24/08/2012 (ITAT, Hyderabad Bench) (ii) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar (2001) 250 ITR 485 (P&H (iii) CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 263 ITR 354 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad) (v) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) (vi) CIT vs. Chandni Buchar (2010) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) (vii) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) (viii)Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT in ITA No.666/CHD/2010 dated 27/04/2012 (ITAT Chandigarh Bench) 2.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the claim of the assessee was bas…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…IT V/s Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) 49-50 12 CIT V/s Smt. Sushila Devi (2001) 256 ITR 179 (Del.) 50 DCIT V/s Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy 13 50-51 Services Ltd. (2011) 131 ITD 263 (Del) 14 51-53 CIT V/s P.v. Kalyanasundaram, (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) 15 CIT V/s BhanwarLal Murawatiya (2008) 3 DTR 115 (Raj) 53-55 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements where alleged unexplained investment in house was deleted. It was requested that assessee case was stronger on facts and therefore, additions deserved deletion. 11 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pv…

Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1539/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1539/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2008-09 M/S HABITAT ROYALE PROJECTS P ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-22, LTD., VS. NEW DELHI 2, GOLDEN GATE, WESTEND GREEN, RAJOKARI, NEW DELHI – 110 038 (PAN: AABCH4891A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Assessee has filed this appeal against the Order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi pertaini…