How many judgments cite CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.?

133 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (159 ITR 71), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153C, Section 69B, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE.

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

159 ITR 71Supreme Court of India1986#764 most cited

What is CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

133

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. · 159 ITR 71 · burden of proof Revenue · understatement of consideration · on-money receipt · evidence of higher price · section 52(2) · section 69B · capital gains · circle rate difference · K.P. Varghese principle

Sections most often in play

Section 153C Section 69B Section 153A Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 132(4)Section 147

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 7(1)section 75 voluntary admission section 52 abatement of assessment circle rate third party information on money receipt section 69b section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 AND Asst.Year : 2013-2014 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1) 2nd Floor, ABS Tower Vadodara. Old Padra Road Vadodara 390 007. PAN : AAACG 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/07/2018 घोषणा…

Shah Realtors, Thane vs. ACIT Cir (4), Thane

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh.B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shah Realtors Acit Circle -4, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It 2Nd Floor, Parshwa Park, Road No. 16-Z, Padmavati, Beside Oriental Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Bank Of Commerce, Thane-400604. Ambadi Road,Vasai(W), Thane-401202 Pan: Abhfs7795J Appellant Respondent : Dr. K. Sivaram Sr. Advocate With Appellant By Sh. Sashank Dandu Advocate Respondent By : Sh. Suman Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Thane, Dated 14Th January 2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Builder & Developer. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Assessment Year On 22Nd Of September 2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,10,630/-. The Assessment Was Completed On 20Th February 2015 Under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer While Passing Assessment Order Besides The Other Additions Made Addition Of Rs.2,52,65,247/- On Account Of Difference Of Sale Price Between Building M/S Shah Realtors No. 3 & Building No. 10, Sold During The Financial Year In Shah

For Respondent: Dr. K. Sivaram Sr. Advocate with

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253

…been understated by the assessee or, in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-s. (2) has no [1986] 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) and in CIT v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. Further, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. M.J. Cherian [1979] 117 ITR 371 has held that the ITO cannot fix higher sales price without any evidence. The me…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/405/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

…een followed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras versus Shivakami ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 23 of 26 Company Private Limited, [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC), which observes that the provision would apply only when there was consideration and which consideration actually received was more than the consideration disclosed or declared. Further, onus was on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the said consideration. Section 52 was not meant to apply to tax capital gains on the basis that t…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/406/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Saroj Sales Organisation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6864/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-25(2), M/S. Saroj Sales Room No.108, 1St Floor, Organization, Bldg. No.C-11, B-202, The Breezy Corner, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. 90Ft. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mahavir Nagar, Bandra (East) Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 067 Pan: Aamfs5193A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT-25(2), M/s. Saroj Sales Room NO.108, 1st Floor, Organization, Bldg. No.C-11, B-202, The Breezy Corner, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. 90ft. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mahavir Nagar, Bandra (East) Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 067 PAN: AAMFS5193A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Justin, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2018 O R D E R…

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

…For the above 10 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements before the ld. CIT(A):- Gist at PB S. No. Case law Page 1 CIT V/s Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) 44-45 2 K.P. Verghese V/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (supra) 45 CIT V/s George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (1067) 66 ITR 622 3 45-46 (SC) 4 CIT V/s Godavari Corpn. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) 46 5 46-47 CIT V/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC) 6 CIT V/s Puneet Sabharwal (2012) 204 TAXMAN 16 (del.) 47-48 7 CIT V/s Smt. Suraj Devi (…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…been filed separately before us:- • CIT V. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 66 ITR 622 (SC) (heavy reliance was placed on this decision) • CIT V. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.: 87 ITR 407 (SC) • K. P. Varghese v. ITO: 131 ITR 597 (SC) • CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC) • CIT v. NandiniNopany: 230 ITR 679 (Cal.) • CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Others: 250 ITR 531 (Del.) • CIT V. Kami Singh 256 ITR 165 (Del) • CIT V. Smt. Sushila Devi 256 ITR 179 (Del.) • CIT v. Nilofer I. Singh: 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) • CIT v. Nilofer I Singh :309 ITR 233 (Del.) • Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO : 309 ITR 240 (Del.) • Sanjay Chawla v. ITO:…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Hi-Energy Realtors Pvt. Ltd

ITA/778/2017HC Delhi09 Oct 2017

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

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69B

…ent of the consideration on the appellant would be to case an impossible burden on him to establish a negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration beyond that declared by him. A similar view has been taken in CIT Vs Sivhakant Co. Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 71. The sum and substance of the citations is that the consideration declared by be appellant has to be accepted by the Revenue as true unless it is proved to be wrongly declared, and the burden of proof is upon the Revenue to establish that the appellant has understand such sale consideration. In CIT Vs Harpal Sing 169 Taxman 90 (P & H), it wa…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment 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 Shri V. Justin-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri…

Neelkamal Realtors and Erectors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Neelkamal Realtors & Dcit -5(1), Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, 265-E, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -5(1), M/S Neelkamal Realtors & Aayakar Bhavan, Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Mumbai-400020 Vs. Floor, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Mimbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him, and there is no concealment or suppression of the consideration.’. Identical view was subsequently reiterated in CIT VS. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC). Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT VS. Godavari Corp Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under- statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention :` Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 1961 can be invoke…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dabur India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3492/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

…nct and could not have been substituted with any other amount for computing the capital gains. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT v Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC) " KP Verghese 131 ITR 597 (SC) " CIT v Shivakami Co Ltd 159 ITR 71 (SC) " CIT v George Henderson and Co Ltd 66 ITR 622 (SC) " ITO v Balaji Textile Mills Pvt Ltd - ITA No 3197/Mum 2010 ITA Nos. 3257 & 3492/Del/2013 109 Dabur India Ltd. 54. It was further submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings provided working of share valuation wherein comparison between projected and actual num…

M/S Dabur India Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3257/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Bhuta Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1291/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT CEN CIR 8(1) Bhuta Investment P.Ltd. R.No.656 6th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ 901 Raheja Chambers, Free Press Bhavan, M.K. RD,Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point. Vs. Pin.400020 Mumbai Pin 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAACB2194B Appellant by Suman Kumar(DR) Revenue by Anuj Kisnadwala Date of Hearing: 7/3/2017 Date of Order: 16 /03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja, A.M: This appeal has filed by the revenue against the…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Indra Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.808, 1295, 1294, 1296 & 809/M/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcit Cen Cir 8(1), Smt. Indra Gaggar, R.No.656, 6Th Floor, 41-42, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gaurav Extension, M.K. Road, Film City Road., बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai – 400 020 Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Afxpg3889B (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) ("&यथ% "&यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% "&यथ% "&यथ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Ghosh, D.R. सुनवाई क' तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2016 सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Ghosh, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 31Section 68

…g cases are directly relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case: (i) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (5C) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (5C) (iii) CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (5C) (iv) CIT V/s Smt.Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 IRE 679 (Cal) 14.2 In view of the decisions cited above, it is established that even if there were some other instances of sale of shares at a higher price that cannot lead to a conclusion that the appellant had also sold its shares at higher price until otherwise the A. 0 is able to prove that the…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Deven J Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6058/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ng cases are directly relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case: (1) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) (iv)CIT V/s Smt.Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 IRE 679 (Cal) 5 14.2 In view of the decisions cited above, it is established that even if there were some other instances of sale of shares at a higher price that cannot lead to a conclusion that the appellant had also sold its shares at higher price until otherwise the A.O is able to prove that the…

Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…nable inference that there was no consideration for the transfer or at any rate the consideration is indeterminable and, therefore, the charging provision - Section 45 becomes inapplicable.” 10. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivakami Company P. Ltd., 159 ITR 71, held that :- “….. since the Tribunal had found that the consideration was not understated and there was no evidence direct or inferential to show that the consideration, actually received by the respondent was more than what was disclosed or declared by the respondent, the proviso to section 12B(2) (corresponding to section 48 & erstwhile section…

Usha Martin Ventures Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 847/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 48Section 50(2)

…re was no evidence direct or inferential, nor was there any finding by any income-tax authority that the assessee indulged in such a practice. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC). We also find support in our view from a Division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B.N.Panda, Dy. CTT [1993] 200 ITR 710.” Taking a consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell And Co Ltd. (supra) and in terms of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional H…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Divya Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

ITA 4315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Mohsin Alam, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4315/Del/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle-03, VS. Smt. Divya Jain, Room No. 355, 3rd floor, C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Jhnadewalan Extension, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) New Delhi – 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. No. 355/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 4315/Del/2011) A.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Divya Jain, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-03, 3rd C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Room No. 355, floor, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) Jhnadewalan Extension, New…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1968/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…IN THE HIGI{ COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 26h September.2012. Date of Decision : 28ft September.2012. + + TTA T667|2OTO ITA 8s/2011 CIT versus DINESH JAIN HUF ITA 1800/2010 ITA 1803/2010 ITA 1805/20t0 ITA 180712010 ITA 1809/2010 ITA 181r/20r0 rTA t8t2l20t0 ITA 1813/2010 TTAT967/2OTO rTA t97212010 CIT LATA JAIN rrA 1815/2010 ITA 181612010 ITA 1817/2010 rrA 1818/2010 rrA 1819/2010 ITA 1968t20t0 rrA 196912010 + + + -r + + + + + + ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent -r + + + + + -r ITA No. 16671201 0 & conn. Page I of2 Signing Date:07.09.2024 17:11:16 Certify that the digita…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1972/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…/f IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 26ft September.2012. Date of Decision : 28ft September.2012. + + + + rTA1667/20t0 ITA 85/2011 CIT + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + VETSUS DINESH JAIN HUF rrA 1800t20r0 ITA 1803/2010 ITA 180s/2010 ITA 180712010 ITA 1809/2010 ITA 1811/2010 ITA 18T2/2OIO ITA 18t3120r0 rTAt967/2010 TTA 1972/2OIO CIT LATA JAIN ITA 1815/2010 ITA 181612010 ITA 18T7/2OLO ITA 1818/2010 ITA 1819/2010 ITA 1968/20t0 ITA 196912010 ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ITA No.l66712010 & conn. Page I of2 Signing Date:07.09.2024 17:11:16 Certify that the digital a…