CIT v. S.K. Construction Co.

328 ITR 516High Court2010#2814 most cited

What is CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. authority for?

The opinion of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) by itself is not sufficient for making an addition to income and requires other corroborated evidence. Such an opinion cannot be relied upon without rejecting the assessee's books of account.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. · CIT v. Naveen Gera · Section 55A · Section 142A · DVO report · valuation officer opinion · corroborating evidence · rejection of books · sufficiency of evidence · additions based on suspicion · unexplained cash · assessment procedure

Also reported as

167 Taxmann 171

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 115BBESection 153ASection 154Section 69CSection 127

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 132(5)section 55asection 38section 100section 131(1)(d)section 153(c)(1)section 142(2)section 142asection 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donation

Judgments citing CIT v. S.K. Construction Co.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ed 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ed 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ed 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…han (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act to establish that claim of the assesse…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…han (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act to establish that claim of the assesse…

THOMAS GEORGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTL.TXN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 124/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.123/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2022-2023 & SA No.17/Coch/2025 Suja Mariamma George The Dy.Commissioner of TC 14/3911, v. Income-tax, Cherupushpalayam, International Taxation Chalakuzhi Lane, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram. Trivandrum – 695 004 PAN : BPRPG3723F. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.124/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2022-2023 & SA No.18/Coch/2025 Thomas George The Dy.Commissioner of TC 14/3911, v. Income-tax, Cherupushpalayam, International Taxation Chalakuzhi Lane, P…

SUJA MARIAMMA GEORGE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTL.TXN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.123/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2022-2023 & SA No.17/Coch/2025 Suja Mariamma George The Dy.Commissioner of TC 14/3911, v. Income-tax, Cherupushpalayam, International Taxation Chalakuzhi Lane, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram. Trivandrum – 695 004 PAN : BPRPG3723F. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.124/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2022-2023 & SA No.18/Coch/2025 Thomas George The Dy.Commissioner of TC 14/3911, v. Income-tax, Cherupushpalayam, International Taxation Chalakuzhi Lane, P…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…he opinion of the Valuation Officer per se was not an information and could not be relied upon without the books of account being rejected which had not been done in that case. 9. The aforesaid principle of law has been reaffirmed in CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) stating that the opinion of the District Valuation Officer per se was not sufficient and other corroborated evidence is required. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese (supra) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Amrapal…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del)…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del)…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del)…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del)…

ANWAR M. SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2669/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…. Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v.Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 / [2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v.Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 / [2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi)(Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lalal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572 / 200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court…

JAYANTA KUMAR SARDAR,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री अधनकेश बनर्जी, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1251/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayanta Kumar Sardar…………...............................................Appellant [PAN: AIXPS 9434 M] Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur.....................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, FCA. Department represented by: Sh. Susanta S…

SHREE KRISHNA BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…uld allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to such person and consider all his objection, against the valuation report in accordance with law. Pratap Vitthal Bandal vs UOI (2020) 116 taxmann.com 919 (Bom.), on sec. 142A (7). -CIT vs Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del) ii) After allowing assessee opportunity in terms of sec. 142A(7), AO to take into consideration various objections that may be raised in respect of DVO's report. Unless objections of assessee are considered and decided upon, no action can be taken in the matter of assessment. Therefore, whether any addition is required or not, can be concl…

SHREE KRISHNA COLONISERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…uld allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to such person and consider all his objection, against the valuation report in accordance with law. Pratap Vitthal Bandal vs UOI (2020) 116 taxmann.com 919 (Bom.), on sec. 142A (7). -CIT vs Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del) ii) After allowing assessee opportunity in terms of sec. 142A(7), AO to take into consideration various objections that may be raised in respect of DVO's report. Unless objections of assessee are considered and decided upon, no action can be taken in the matter of assessment. Therefore, whether any addition is required or not, can be concl…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 193/RPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 192/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 191/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 190/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. (328 ITR 516) — Cited in 42 Judgments | BharatTax