CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.

288 ITR 345High Court2007#526 most cited

What is CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot make an adverse assessment based solely on the statement of a third party if that party refuses to be cross-examined by the assessee and no other corroborating material exists.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. · 288 ITR 345 · Delhi HC · adverse assessment · third party statement · cross-examination · natural justice · reliance on statements · search and seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 68Section 132(4)Section 147Section 69CSection 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 44afsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 65jewellery found during searchsection 153a proceedingssection 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 65b

Judgments citing CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.

ITO, Faridabad vs. Sh. Satish Kumar, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3698/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

…ty to cross examine Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal was allowed to the assessee. Thus, any statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal relied upon by Ld. AO cannot be admitted as evidence and, therefore, needs to be excluded from consideration in view of 125 ITR 713 (SC) and 288 ITR 345 (Del.). As regards to the Inspector’s report as to the non-existent of the parties which was submitted that copy of the said report was not available to the assessee. Therefore, this report cannot be relied upon. He further argued that even if it is considered, though denied that assessee has not made purchases from these two parties yet the fa…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…statements cannot be relied on. In addition to the above, the assessee relies on the following case laws: On the issue of assessment made based on third party statements: PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd - 288 ITR 345 - Delhi HC suspicion: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT - 26 ITR 775 – SC (CLPB page 155/156) A.S.Sivan Pillai vs CIT - 34 ITR 328 - Madras HC(CLPB page 162/163) On the issue that admission is not conclusive and has no evidentiary value: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr - 91 ITR 18 - Supreme Court (CLPB page 189/190) C…

Bharat Mine and Minerals, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

…ation is a serious lapse and no addition can be made based on such uncorroborated statements as held in the following caselaws: 1) Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs DCIT - ITA 653/Bang/2015 - ITAT Bangalore – CLPB page 49 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd - 288 ITR 345 - Delhi HC – CLPB page 92 3) PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC – CLPB page 319 The AO erred in refusing to allow adjustment of loss on forward exchange contract amounting to Rs.23,82,85,725/-. The rejection by the AO is contrary to the provisions of law & is arbitrary. In the alternative the assessee prays that the loss ma…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

…pecially when the assessee has made a request for the same, no reliance can be placed. The following case laws are relied upon in this regard: 1) Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs DCIT - ITA 653/Bang/2015 - ITAT Bangalore. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd - 288 ITR 345 - Delhi HC. 3) Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V.Visvanatha Sastri & Anr - 26 ITR 1 – SC – CLPB page 143 4) PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC. Accordingly it is prayed that the addition on this ground also to be vacated. On the issue of section 10B deduction, it is seen that the impugned assessment year is a second year of es…

M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Works, Kolkata vs. The DCIT Cir-36, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1232/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Dcit, Circle- बनाम Works, 4 India Exchange 36,Kolkata / V/S. Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkta-001 [Pan No.Aanfs0164 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-11-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-12-2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 09.04.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2010 For Assessment Year 2008-09. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Surbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Sole Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,17,47,513 On Account Of Commission Expenses Claimed By The Assessee. 3. Briefly Stated Facts Are That The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Iron & Steel Materials.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ve guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them.” 6.2 We further rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smc. Share Brokers Lt. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) in this case the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:- “We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its view that in the absence of Manoj Aggarwal being made available for cross-examination, despite repeated requests by the assessee, his statement could not be relied upon to his detriment.” We rely in the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdi…

M/S. Shri Gems, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2912/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shri Gems, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/2441, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Ward-33(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcfs2245L Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-28, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 234BSection 69C

…el.) " Pr. CIT Vs Uma Singal, Brijbhushan Singal in ITA Nos. 689 to 692, 694 & 744 of 2015 order dated 05.10.2015 (Del.) " Prakash Chand Nahata Vs Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC) " Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " CIT Vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.) " Alok Aggarwal Vs DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del.) 10. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in their respective orders. 11. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the…

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

…ld 214 (Raj.) 82 2 SCIT v/s M/s Swastik Enterpriss, Udaipur (ITA No. 329/JU/2008) & Ors 82-84 3 Prakash Chand Nahata v/s CIT. (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) 84 4 CIT v/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Delhi) 85 5 CIT v/s SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi) 85 6 CTO, Anit Evasion, Zone Jaipur v/s Haryana Dal Mill. (1993) 90 STC (Raj.) 519 85 7 Anil Kumar mahipal v/s ITO (2006) 35 Tax World 33 (JD) 86 Laxmanbhai S. Patel v/s CIT Oct. 15,2008 114 ITD 8 86-87 (ITR No. 41 of 1997 dated 22.7.2008) (Guj.) 9 ITO v/s Permanand. (2007) 107 TTJ (JD) 395 87 10 Zakir Hussain v/s CIT (2006) 202 CTR (Raj.…

Himanshu Girish Davey, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the above cited two assessees in

ITA 2064/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, C/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2063/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 ) Mr.Hiren Girish Davey, The ACIT, Vs. 14,Kesava Iyer street, Park Non-corporate circle 4(1), Town,Chennai 600 003. Chennai-34. PAN AAFPD 3984 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) I.T.A.No.2064/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15 ) Mr.Himanshu Girish Davey, The ACIT, Vs. 14,Kesava Iyer street, Park Non-corporate circle 4(1), Town,Chennai 600 003. Chennai-34. PAN AABPD 0…

Hiren Girish Davey, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the above cited two assessees in

ITA 2063/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, C/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2063/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 ) Mr.Hiren Girish Davey, The ACIT, Vs. 14,Kesava Iyer street, Park Non-corporate circle 4(1), Town,Chennai 600 003. Chennai-34. PAN AAFPD 3984 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) I.T.A.No.2064/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15 ) Mr.Himanshu Girish Davey, The ACIT, Vs. 14,Kesava Iyer street, Park Non-corporate circle 4(1), Town,Chennai 600 003. Chennai-34. PAN AABPD 0…

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 333/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajda Polymers -Vs- Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata [Pan: Aadfr 2816 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

…he case of H R Mehta vs CIT reported in 387 ITR 561 (Bom) b) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ashwani Gupta reported in 322 ITR 396 (Del) c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SMC Chare Brokers Ltd reported in 288 ITR 345 (Del) d) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs Union of India reported in 247 ITR 274 (SC) e) Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Eastern Commercial Enterprises reported in 210 ITR 103 (Cal) f) Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.S.Abdul Majeed vs Agricultural In…

Hiren Pharma & Surgicals, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2007/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 07.11.2017
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…o the assessee. I, therefore by placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT in [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and also the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SMC SHARE BROKERS LTD. in [2007] 288 ITR 345 (Del) wherein held that the ld. Assessing Officer cannot take an adverse view on the basis of the statement of the third parties. If the statement of the third parties are discarded or ignored while considering the evidences on record, there is no other material before the AO to take an adverse view. Further, this view is fortified by the judg…

Om Logistics Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4304/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiom Logistics Ltd. Acit 130, Transport Nagar, Circle-21 Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaaco4716C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…n the case of ITA No. 504/2016 vide order dated 31.08.2016 13. He has also placed reliance upon following decisions which has been filed before us at the time of hearing: • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court CIT vs SMC share Brokers Ltd., Reported in (2007) 288 ITR 345 8 • CIT vs Oasis Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd., is and UP Bone Mills India Ltd reported in (2011 333 ITR 119; • Shivank Udyog Ltd vs ITO reported in (2011) (10) TMI 667; • ITO vs Tubecon India Ltd reported in 2015 (11) TMI 292 • IT versus Neelkanth Finbuild Pvt.Ltd., in ITA No. 1932/del/2009 wide order dated 01.04.2015 14. The sum and substance of the…

M/S. Aps Containers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xviii, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2154/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 133ASection 147

…have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them.” We further rely in the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smc. Share Brokers Lt. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) in this case the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:- “We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its view that in the absence of Manoj Aggarwal being made available for cross-examination, despite repeated requests by the assessee, his statement could not be relied upon to his detriment.” We rely in the judgment of Hon'ble jurisd…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Township Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6235/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6208 & 6209/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 208, Gupta Tower, Azadpur Central Circle-09, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110033 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

…58 (Del. Trib.) " Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 order dated 02.09.2015 (Hon’ble SC) " Prakash Chand Nahata Vs Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC) " Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " CIT Vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.) " Alok Aggarwal Vs DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del.) 12. It was further submitted that the CBDT vide Circular No. 24/2014 issued on 31.12.2015 clarified that even if the AO of the searched person and the other person is one and the same, then also the AO is required to record his satisfaction and that in the present case, no satisfaction has…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6230/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6208 & 6209/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 208, Gupta Tower, Azadpur Central Circle-09, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110033 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

…58 (Del. Trib.) " Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 order dated 02.09.2015 (Hon’ble SC) " Prakash Chand Nahata Vs Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC) " Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " CIT Vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.) " Alok Aggarwal Vs DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del.) 12. It was further submitted that the CBDT vide Circular No. 24/2014 issued on 31.12.2015 clarified that even if the AO of the searched person and the other person is one and the same, then also the AO is required to record his satisfaction and that in the present case, no satisfaction has…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6228/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6208 & 6209/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 208, Gupta Tower, Azadpur Central Circle-09, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110033 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

…58 (Del. Trib.) " Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 order dated 02.09.2015 (Hon’ble SC) " Prakash Chand Nahata Vs Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC) " Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " CIT Vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.) " Alok Aggarwal Vs DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del.) 12. It was further submitted that the CBDT vide Circular No. 24/2014 issued on 31.12.2015 clarified that even if the AO of the searched person and the other person is one and the same, then also the AO is required to record his satisfaction and that in the present case, no satisfaction has…