CIT v. S.K. Construction Co.

328 ITR 516High Court2010#2810 most cited

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

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on a Departmental Valuation Officer's report without any corroborating incriminating material. The burden of proof rests on the revenue.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. · addition based on DVO report · incriminating material · burden of proof on revenue · section 132 · section 143(3) · valuation report

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.

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 189/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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 188/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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…

Sh. Hafizuddin Hazi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…sis of the report of the DVO. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) K.P. YARGHESE VS. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC); (ii) CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARWAL 338 ITR 485 (DEL); (iii) CIT VS. SADHNA GUPTA 352 ITR 595 (DEL); (iv) CIT VS. NAVEEN GERA 328 ITR 516 (DEL); (v) CIT VS. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI 316 ITR 46 (DEL); & (vi) TEEN MURTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO - ITA No.2281/DEL/2010 A.Y.06-07. 16. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out various defects in the report of the DVO which are enumerated at page 7 of the synopsis. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) also did not consider the following facts…

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

…Zakir Hussain v/s CIT & Ors. (2006) 202 CTR 40 (Raj.) 66 15 Shree Chand Soni v/s DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 1028 (Jd) 67 16 Ajay Sharma v/s ACIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Del) 1065 67-69 17 Smt. Sujata Graover v/s ACIT (2006) 99 TTJ (Del) 837 69 18 CIT v/s naveen gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) 69-70 19 CIT V/s Bajrang Lal Bansal (2011) 335 ITR 572 (Delhi) 70-71 20 ITO V/s Dua Auto Components (P) Ltd. (2011) 135 TTJ (Del) 621 71 8. Heavy burden is on the Department where unexplained investment u/s 69 is alleged. Following case laws were relied upon which have been totally ignored by the ld. CIT(A):- 12 M/s. Kamakshi Hospital…

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)

…s. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) : TC22R.105 followed; Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 311 (Mad) : TC22R.151 affirmed on different grounds.” 2.8. Likewise, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Navi Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del.) held as under:- “The present appeal has been filed under s. 260A of IT Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dt. 11th Sept., 2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 66/Del/2001, for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 20th Aug., 1998. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the…

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA/703/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

…Sardana (decision dated 4th May, ITA 703/2017 Page 4 of 5 2012 in ITA No.266/2012); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del); Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Sharma (decision dated 8th November 2013 in ITA No. 497 of…

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA - 703 / 2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

…Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:24:53 ITA 703/2017 Page 4 of 5 2012 in ITA No.266/2012); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Del); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del); Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Sharma (decision dated 8th November 2013 in ITA No. 497 of…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…Wealth-tax Officer 127 ITR 308. In these cases, the concealment proceedings were quashed on this basis. Referring to the another judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, 328 ITR 604 and in the case of CIT vs. Naveen Gera [2011] 328 ITR 516, Ld Counsel mentioned that the additions cannot be made on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO in the absence of any incriminating material. The burden vests on the Revenue in such caes. Referring to the facts of the present case, Ld Counsel mentioned that the assessee disclosed investment of Rs. 46,13,007/- on the 876,828,4566,4547,218/…

Sri S S Jyothi Prakash vs. The Addl Commissioner

The appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA/460/2010HC Karnataka07 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260Section 68Section 69

…ion Officer per se was not an information and could not 17 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 (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the ca…

Mount View Club & Resorts P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

ITA 1358/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69B

…High 'Court in Hotel Regal International and Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [320 ITR 573]. (2) The Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Iqbal Hussain [328 ITR 142]. (3) The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naveen Gera [328 ITR 516]. It was further submitted that following the above Apex Court Judgement, the Gujarat High Court in Goodluck Automobiles Private Limited v. ACIT [359 ITR 306] and Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Lucknow Public Education Society [359 ITR 588] has held that reference to valuation officer without rejecting the books of accounts is invalid. The Ld.…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S. Prakash Industries Ltd., Hisar

In the result the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6230/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 1996-97 Acit, Vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aabcp6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…tion (P.) Ltd. 59 taxmann.com 144 (Gujarat) CIT v. Bajrang Lai Bansal 355 ITR 572 (Delhi) CIT v. Lahsa Construction (P.) Ltd 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) CIT vs. Smt Suraj Devi 328 ITR 604 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera 328 ITR 516 (Del) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 7 TAXMAN 13 (SC) 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that there were bona fide reasons regarding why the estimate made by DVO should not have been adopted. He submitted that the DVO applied the CPWD rates, which were on the higher side and were generally applied to construction of Government of India and other P…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Nirmal B Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4136/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4135/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) The Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Dayal Bapulal Thakkar (Huf), Income Tax 25(2), A-10, Charan Saran, Vile Parle Vs. (Erstwhile Acit-21(1), ) Model Town Co-Op Hsc, Room No.711, C-12, 7Th Floor, Gulmohar X Road No.7, Juhu, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai-400049 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 45(2)Section 48

…disturbed the value accounted for in the books of account without rejecting the books of account. In this regard, the Ld A.R appearing for M/s Nirmal B Thakkar (HUF) relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (328 ITR 516). It was also submitted that the information obtained by the AO from the stamp value authority was not confronted with the assessees herein. 17. Since we have upheld the view taken by ld CIT(A) by examining the facts available on record, we do not find it necessary to address various legal issues urged by the assessees herein. In any case, the f…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Dayal Bapulal Thakker, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4135/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4135/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) The Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Dayal Bapulal Thakkar (Huf), Income Tax 25(2), A-10, Charan Saran, Vile Parle Vs. (Erstwhile Acit-21(1), ) Model Town Co-Op Hsc, Room No.711, C-12, 7Th Floor, Gulmohar X Road No.7, Juhu, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai-400049 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 45(2)Section 48

…disturbed the value accounted for in the books of account without rejecting the books of account. In this regard, the Ld A.R appearing for M/s Nirmal B Thakkar (HUF) relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (328 ITR 516). It was also submitted that the information obtained by the AO from the stamp value authority was not confronted with the assessees herein. 17. Since we have upheld the view taken by ld CIT(A) by examining the facts available on record, we do not find it necessary to address various legal issues urged by the assessees herein. In any case, the f…

Venus Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5335/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2009-10 Venus Financial Services Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, (Now Merged With Avantha Realty Ltd.) Circle 17(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv3258L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 .07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 :09.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1) That The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO Assessment Year: 2009-10 Venus Financial Services Ltd., vs. Assistant CIT, (Now merged with Avantha Realty Ltd.) Circle 17(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACV3258L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01 .07.2015 Date of pronouncement: 28 :09.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has impugned First Appellate Order on the following grounds: 1) That the order of th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-XI vs. Raj Kumar Jain

ITA/605/2014HC Delhi20 Feb 2015

…urdayal Singh, his agent/guardian died in 1994. After his death, the LRs continued to contest the title and eventually the purchaser agreed to pay a further amount of ₹35 lakhs. The ITAT took note of several decisions, including CIT vs. Naveen Gera 2010 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) and other decisions, including that of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) of Supreme Court to show that the AO has to base his view with regard to under valuation, upon objective material. 7. In the present case, it is a matter of fact that on 18.09.1989, the statement was recorded by the Court. At the sam…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

ITA - 120 / 2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015
Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…ion of law as framed in the context of the present case does not arise for consideration and has since been settled by various decisions. She relied upon the decisions reported as CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal, (2013) 351 ITR 20, CIT v. Naveen Gera, (2010) 328 ITR 516 and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal, (2011) 335 ITR 572. Reliance was also placed upon the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. Lahsa Constructions (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 to say that DVO’s report could not be the sole basis for addition and that there has to be some further material on record. To the same effect, CIT v. S.K. 2015:DHC:1595-DB…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

ITA/120/2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015
Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…ion of law as framed in the context of the present case does not arise for consideration and has since been settled by various decisions. She relied upon the decisions reported as CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal, (2013) 351 ITR 20, CIT v. Naveen Gera, (2010) 328 ITR 516 and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal, (2011) 335 ITR 572. Reliance was also placed upon the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. Lahsa Constructions (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 to say that DVO’s report could not be the sole basis for addition and that there has to be some further material on record. To the same effect, CIT v. S.K. 2015:DHC:1595-DB…

Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiv vs. Vivek Aggarwal

ITA/66/2014HC Delhi09 Feb 2015
Section 132Section 153A

…matter reference under Section 142A given the restricted nature of the block assessment proceedings. On this aspect the ITAT relied upon a judgment of this Court in CIT Vs. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 250 ITR 141 and the subsequent ruling in CIT V. Naveen Gera 328 ITR 516. In those judgments it has been held that in the absence of any incriminating evidence with respect to payment over and above the reported amount, the revenue is under the burden of proving that in fact there was understatement or concealment of income. In the present case too there was no material at all for the revenue to conclude 2015:D…

Commissioner of Income Tax VII vs. Shri Karan Khandelwal

The appeals are allowed

ITA/334/2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…Revenue was dismissed. The learned Counsel for Mr. Sunil Bedi has also relied upon CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] 305 ITR 245 (Del), CIT v. Prem Nath Nagpal 214 CTR 51 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT v. Kishan Kumar and Others [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj.) and CIT v. Dr. S.Bharti [2002] 254 ITR 261 (Del). In Ved Prakash (supra) during the course of search at the residence of respondent two MoUs were recovered. The assessee admitted signatures on those MoUs but denied having received the amount mentioned in the documents. The A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

ITA/82/2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…Revenue was dismissed. The learned Counsel for Mr. Sunil Bedi has also relied upon CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] 305 ITR 245 (Del), CIT v. Prem Nath Nagpal 214 CTR 51 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT v. Kishan Kumar and Others [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj.) and CIT v. Dr. S.Bharti [2002] 254 ITR 261 (Del). In Ved Prakash (supra) during the course of search at the residence of respondent two MoUs were recovered. The assessee admitted signatures on those MoUs but denied having received the amount mentioned in the documents. The A…