CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.

Plhr Hospitality Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 32, Delhi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

…rovision would come to the Revenue’s aid as is done in the lower appellate discussion in issue. And also that going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB), there is no such option of changing the head of income in section 251(1)(a) “enhancement” jurisdiction as well. The impugned twin additions of Rs. 20 lakh as well as Rs. 60,000/- herein, are hereby deleted, therefore. 3. This assessee’s appeal ITA 4571/Del/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 28.08.2025. (SATBEER SINGH…

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

…which were not the subject matter of the assessment proceedings. Ld DR contented that DRP has power to modify and enhance the assessment made by the AO. Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of CIT Vs Sardari Lal( FB) Delhi High Court reported in 251 ITR 864(Del). Ld DR relied on the decision of Lahmeyer Holding reported in (2015) 59 taxman.com 336(Del). -: Finding of the Bench:- 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the draft assessment order would show that the AO has not at all discussed this issue at the time of assessment, neither the…

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

…which were not the subject matter of the assessment proceedings. Ld DR contented that DRP has power to modify and enhance the assessment made by the AO. Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of CIT Vs Sardari Lal( FB) Delhi High Court reported in 251 ITR 864(Del). Ld DR relied on the decision of Lahmeyer Holding reported in (2015) 59 taxman.com 336(Del). -: Finding of the Bench:- 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the draft assessment order would show that the AO has not at all discussed this issue at the time of assessment, neither the…

Takshshila Co-Op Group Housing Society Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(2), Vikas Bhawan

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

…## IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI ## BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4245/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 | Takshshila | Co-op | Group | Vs. | Income Tax Officer, | | | |--------------------------|-------|------------|-----|---------------------|--|--| | Housing Society Limited, | | | | Ward-59(2), | | | | 57,<br>IP | | Extension, | | Delhi | | | | Patparganj, | | | | | | | | Delhi |…

Hargovind Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-57(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Hargovind Jain, Vs. Ito, Ix/ 3435, Street No. 3, Ward-57, Dharampura, Gandhi D Block, New Delhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 (Now Asst Order By Ito, Ward-35(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adjpj5609E Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

…CIT(A) does not have power to make any disallowance or addition on account of new source of income. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari lal and co. reported in 251 ITR 864 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “4. Looking from the aforesaid angles, the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the assessing officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 1…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Geeta Sharma, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee's cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Geeta Sharma, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Guru Prasad Sharma, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Guru Prasad Sharma, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 &…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad vs. Vinay Sharma, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 &…

Niraj Rathi & Sons HUF, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

…ment addition of Rs. 14,73,340/- in the assessee's hands which stands converted to that under section 56(2)(vii); and, therefore, it is hereby concluded in the light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that such a course of action is not available to the CIT(A) in exercises of his lower appellate jurisdiction under section 251(1)(a) of the Act. - 4. That being the clinching factual position, the tribunal hereby finds no merit in the impugned addition. The same is directed to be deleted.…

Emaar India Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-74(2), New Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Emaar India Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Tds, Ward-74(2), Square One, C-2, New Delhi District Centre Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aabce4308B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Ms. Aditi Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 Order

…as the assessee in default for not having deducting TDS under Section 194I of the Act. We accordingly find no merit in the learned CIT(A)’s impugned action in light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that no such jurisdiction is vested in him of changing a head of income u/s 251(1) of the Act. We thus accept the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal 2 | P a g e ground to delete the impugned section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) TDS recovery addition in very terms. All other pleadings on…

Excel Infotech Limites, Delhi vs. ACIT, Cenral Circle-30, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1065/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Excel Infotech Ltd., Vs Acit, Sachin Saxena & Co., Central Circle-30, Office No. 101 & 102, 1St Floor, A-1, New Delhi-110055 Madhuban Tower, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2098K Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. & Sh. Harshit Chauhan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S In Case No. 161/16- 17/2595 Dated 04.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

…this third addition during the course of enhancement by the CIT(A) amounts to changing the head of the addition itself, already held as not sustainable in law going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). We thus quash the impugned re-opening as 6 Excel Infotech Ltd. well as delete this third addition in very terms i.e. on legality as well as on merits. 8. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us at this stage. 9. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open…

Satish, Jind vs. Assessing Officer, Jind

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5619/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satish, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 680, Nirjan, Ward-1, Jind Haryana-126102 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dfups0022C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

…/s 54B deduction is concerned, the same is found to be an instance of enhancement and not sustainable in law since, amounting to adding a new head of income of going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). The impugned disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- stands deleted therefore. 5. Next comes the second substantive issue of correctness of the assessee’s cash deposits addition amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. It has come on record that the assessee and his family members had infact sold/transferred land…

Mohit Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), Delhi

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…n the assessment a new source of income and the assessment must be confined to those items of income which were the subject-matter of the original assessment. (Para 18 (49)) 50. In course of time, Union Tyres was doubted. In CIT v. Sardari Lal and Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) [FB], the same issue whether the appellate authority has the power under section 251 to discover a new source of income was referred to a Full Bench. After examining the authorities holding the fielding on that issue, the learned Full Bench has held that the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from…