CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)

294 ITR 49Supreme Court of India2007#261 most cited

What is CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

299

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. R. Nalini Devi · 294 ITR 49 · uncorroborated third party statement · loose sheets · seized documents · cross-examination · evidentiary value · section 132 · section 153A · section 153C · addition without corroboration

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 68Section 292CSection 131Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 158bb(1)dumb documentssection 69bsection 132(4a)section 292section 131(1a)section 34loose paperssection 29section 153c(1)section 158bb

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)

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

…of income for the purpose of levy of capital gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee in the return of income is supported by the transfer transaction which represents the full value of consideration in the partnership deed. Hence that has to be accepted. The sworn statement which was made under the surrounding circumstances in…

The Asstt. Commr. Income Tax, Cir.-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Cast & Blower Co. (Gujarat) P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 750/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 750/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr.D.R
Section 292C

…to make an addition on the basis of surrender during search or survey, it is sine qua non that there should be some other material to co-relate the undisclosed income with such statement. Also, in an earlier judgment in the case of P.V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down the same judicial principle, that the additions cannot be made, merely based on jottings on loose sheets, when no other corroborative evidence is brought out on record by the revenue. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. P. Verghese (1981) AIR 1922, 1982 SCR (1) 629 has held, that the burd…

Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4601/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4601/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ms. Priyanka Chopra Dy. Cit, Central Circle – 3, बनाम/ 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, B-Wing, Mumbai Vs. Versova, Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4565/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Central Circle – 3, Ms. Priyanka Chopra बनाम/ Mumbai 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Vs. B-Wing, Versova, Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4569/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Central Circle – 3, Mrs. Madhu Ashok Chopra बनाम/ Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Annex, M. K. Road, B-Wing, Versova, Mumbai-400 061 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acepc 5502 F (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Naresh Kumar Assessee By : Shri B. Srinivas Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S. Since The Issues Are Common & Connected & The Appeals Were Heard Together These Are Being Consolidated

For Appellant: Shri B. Srinivas

…rty of 5100 sq. ft. from the said builder. Hence, the claim that it was a proposal later on not carried through and cancelled is having sufficient cogency. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. P. V. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (S.C.) had affirmed the deletion of similar addition. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, we affirm the same. Apropos ground no. 2: 19. The assessing officer made addition in this regard by observing as under: 19.2 Pur…

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

…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 based on general observations. The Ld. DR submitted that whil…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

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

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 SUNIL AGARWAL, Vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR LAXMI NIWAS, NEAR POST OFFICE, KANKHAL, HARIDWAR UTTARAKHAND (PAN: AANPA0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. Department by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Hladwani on 16.11.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Chennai vs. M/S. S. Ajit Kumar Thr. Its Managing Director

In the result, all the appeals succeed and are allowed

C.A. No.-010164-010164 - 2010Supreme Court02 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

…ra (2017) 392 ITR 347 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R.M.L. Mehrotra (2010) 320 ITR 403 (All.), Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1957) 21 ITR 28 (S.C.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (S.C.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Anita Chouhan (2008) 296 ITR 691 6 (M.P.) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab vs. Indian Wollen Textiles Mills (1964) 51 ITR 291. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that in view of the above decisions, this appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Discussion:- 8) In the present cas…

Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2769/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2769/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ms. Priyanka Chopra Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(3), 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ B-Wing, Versova, Annex, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 061 Mumbai-20 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Priyanka Chopra Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400 061 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Rahul Raman Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Naresh Kumar & Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 16.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 12.02.2015 & Pertain To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Revenue’S Appeal (In Ita No. 2524/Mum/2015):

For Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar &
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एच” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2769/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ms. Priyanka Chopra Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(3), 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Room No. 905, Old CGO Building बनाम/ B-Wing, Versova, Annex, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 061 Mumbai-20 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ACXPC 1741 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Priyanka C…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2524/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2769/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ms. Priyanka Chopra Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(3), 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ B-Wing, Versova, Annex, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 061 Mumbai-20 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Priyanka Chopra Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400 061 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Rahul Raman Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Naresh Kumar & Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 16.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 12.02.2015 & Pertain To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Revenue’S Appeal (In Ita No. 2524/Mum/2015):

For Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar &
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एच” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2769/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ms. Priyanka Chopra Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(3), 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Room No. 905, Old CGO Building बनाम/ B-Wing, Versova, Annex, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 061 Mumbai-20 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ACXPC 1741 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Priyanka C…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2523/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2523/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Priyanka Chopra Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, बनाम/ Annex, M. K. Road, B-Wing, Versova, Vs. Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rahul Raman ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Naresh Kumar & Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 16.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 12.02.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2007- 08. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar &
Section 132

…That no addition should be made on the basis of loose sheets. Hence, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee’s explanation is acceptable in light of the on’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 4 Dy. CIT vs. Ms. Priyanka Chopra (SC) and ITAT, Mumbai Bench decision in the case of S P Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum). 6. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the Assessing Officer has noted that from the ledger accounts and bank statement…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Studio Aesthetic Health & Hospitality P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are allowed and the cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Studio Aethetic Health & Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 No.1, Home Worth, 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Studio Aethetic Health & Hospitality Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ No.1, Home Worth, Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman : Shri Naresh Kumar With Assessee By Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Emanating Out Of The Respective Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Identical & The Appeals Were Heard Together, These Are Being Consolidated & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153D

…ssessment proceedings, the addition made is deleted. 4.6 No addition can be made on basis of loose papers found or register found which is further not corroborated by evidence. In support of the same I rely on the decision of CIT vs F.V.Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court and the Tribunal that loose pieces of paper on the basis of which the initial suspicion with regard to the undervaluation had been raised are vague. Furthermore, in the case of CIT vs A tarn Valves P Ltd ( 2009) "184 Taxman 6 (P&H), it has been held that the A.O. was not…

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

…roperty is on the Revenue and it had failed to discharge the said burden. 8.5 In the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) it has been held that the loose sheets of paper cannot be considered to be books. 8.6 In the case of CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) it has been observed as under:- "Notings on the loose pieces o{paper on the basis of which the initial suspicion with regard to the under valuation had been raised were vague and could not be relied upon as it appeared that the total area with respect to the sale deed and that reflected in the loose sheet was discrepant. It was also observed tha…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…perty. Our attention was invited to the factual finding recorded by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Further, reliance was made upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Gulshan Kumar (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.), CIT vs P. V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC), Dua Auto components Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4802/Del./2009), CIT vs Indication Instruments Ltd. (ITA NO.603/2011) and Pramod Pandey vs ACIT (ITA No.4295/Del./2012) and various other decisions mentioned in the written submissions. The crux of the argument is in support of the impugned order. 4 M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. 2.1. We ha…

Shri Arun Malhotra vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/303/2017HC Delhi17 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260

…ITA No.303 of 2017 Page 1 of 5 $~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 303/2017 SHRI ARUN MALHOTRA ..... Appellant Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Aggarwal & Ms. Shyamlima Borah, Advocates versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2..... Respondent Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R % 17.05.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. This is the second round of litigation which, unfortunately, and inevitably is, for reasons explain…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh.Smt. Deepti Talla, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1563/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148

…08 in ITA no. 4295/Del./2005 (ITAT Delhi Bench) (iv). Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Ltd, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi). (v). CIT vs Gulshan Kumar [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Delhi). (vi). CIT v. P .V. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC). (vii). Subhash Chand Chopra v. Asst. CIT [2005] 92 TTJ (Delhi) 1087). (viii). K.P Varghese. v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 7. On the strength of above decisions, the ld. CIT(A) further observed as under : “Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer has erred in referring the matter to the DVO and consequently the DVO's…

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…ments could not be treated as conclusive proof of ‘on money’ transaction, therefore, addition could not be sustained. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court duly considered the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs P. B. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (Supreme Court) and K.P. Vergese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (Supreme Court). In another case, identically the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs D. Kanta (2012) 19 taxman.com 92 (Karnataka), where the assessee and his wife purchase land through the registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.8.5 lakhs. A search action was carried out in the…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157, ITAT Hyderabad Benches. 6. Hon 'ble A.P. High Court in the case 0/ K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 5630/2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. 7. CBIvs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) 8. CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) 9. CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court. 10. ACITvs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ0145) (Delhi) 11. Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur.” 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need…

Samta Khinda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 5515/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 292CSection 69Section 698Section 69B

…evi vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157, ITAT Hyderabad Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any in…

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

In the result, both the Assessee Appeals stand allowed

ITA 378/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292C

…evi vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157, ITAT Hyderabad Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any in…

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

In the result, both the Assessee Appeals stand allowed

ITA 377/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292C

…evi vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157, ITAT Hyderabad Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any in…

Samta Khinda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 336/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 292CSection 69Section 698Section 69B

…evi vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157, ITAT Hyderabad Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any in…