CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.

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

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

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)

…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…

Victory Township Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

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)

…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…

Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

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)

…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…

ITO Ward-23 (2), New Delhi vs. Anuj Mehta, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiincome Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Anuj Mehta, S-217, Greater Ward-23(2), New Delhi Kailash-Ii, New Delhi 110048 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the Department. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the ratio of the case of M/s. in not appreciating the fact that the ratio of the case of M/s. SMC Share Broker Ltd 288 ITR 345 is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law.” 3. At the outset of the hearing itself, the ld. DR brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 has decided that the r…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG2585Q Assessee by : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These three appeals by the department are directed again…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG2585Q Assessee by : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These three appeals by the department are directed again…

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 491/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/s Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, (Presently known as Indev Ward-4(3), Develoeprs Pvt. Ltd.), AM-87, New Delhi Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCL4694D Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.11.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-V, Delhi. 3. Following grounds h…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Softline Creations (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Vijay Pal Raoito, Vs. M/S. Softline Creations (P) Ltd., Ward-9(1), Room 38, Rani Jhanshi Road, No.190, Jhandewallan, New Delhi C.R.Building, New Pan:Aaecs6591B Delhi (Assessee) (Respondent)

…d 22nd September 2015 in Civil Appeal No.4288/2006. He has also relied upon the following judgement:- 1. Prakash Chand Nahata Vs.Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC) Page No. 5 2. Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), 3. CIT Vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del) 4. Alok Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del) 7. Alternatively the ld AR has submitted the alleged bogus share holders are all incorporated and active companies as per record of the ROC and the master data detail along with PAN was also submitted before the AO by the assessee. All these entities are having their bank account, payment w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xiii vs. Manoj Bansal

The appeal is dismissed

…02. the Court recorded specifically in para 25 that the said note pertaining to the case of SMC Share Brokers V. Dy. CIT which was the subject matter of another appeal decided in a judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwear (supra) pertinently held as follows : “44. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Xiv New Delhi vs. Shri Arun Malhotra

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…own to Shri Sachdeva, he refused to appear. We therefore, on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) and that by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (288 ITR 345), hold that the Assessing Officer cannot take adverse view on the basis of statement of Shri Sachdeva. If the statement of Shri Sachdeva is discarded or is ignored while considering the evidence on record, there is no other material before the Assessing Officer to take an adverse view. We, therefore, deleted the addition as made by the…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Xiv New Delhi vs. Ahri Arun Malhotra

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…nown to Shri Sachdeva, he refused to appear. We therefore, on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) and that by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (288 ITR 345), hold that the Assessing Officer cannot take adverse view on the basis of statement of Shri Sachdeva. If the statement of Shri Sachdeva is discarded or is ignored while considering the evidence on record, there is no other material before the Assessing Officer to take an adverse view. We, therefore, deleted the addition as· made by the…

Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Fair Finvest Ltd

Bench: The Itat.

…Page 6 of 8 thereupon given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these applicants. Reliance in this regard is also palced on the decision of Delhi H.C. in case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta (322 ITR 396), CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (288 ITR 345) and DCIT vs. GSV Investment P. Ltd. 146 ITR 36 (ITAT) where the addition made by the AO has been deleted as the AO has passed the assessment order in violation of the principles of nature justice in as much as no cross examination was allowed to the assessee on basis of whose statement the said addition was made. Moreover the facts of the…

CIT vs. Jrm Steel Pvt Ltd

Bench: The Tribunal In Relation To The Assessment Years 2000-01 & 2001- 02. The Order Of The Tribunal Which Is Impugned In These Appeals Was Passed In The Second Round Of The Proceedings. In The First Round Of The Proceedings, It Was The Assesse Who Was In Appeal Before The Tribunal In Ita Nos.821-822/Del/2007 Which Were Disposed Of By The Tribunal By Order Dated 23.3.2009. This Was An Agreed Order 2012:Dhc:6897-Db

…- (a) that the assessee will not challenge the validity of the reopening of the assessment and (b) the matter would be sent back to the Assessing Officer in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. SMC Sharebrokers Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 345 to enable the Assessing Officer to supply the copies of the statement of one Pradeep Jindal to the assessee and if desired by the assessee to afford an opportunity to cross examine him and thereafter make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. The Tribunal in the light of the above, restored the assessments to the Assessing Officer for f…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xiii vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal

…and the revenue had chosen not to challenge the finding recorded by the tribunal and, therefore, the said note cannot be placed reliance upon. This decision of the Division Bench is reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del). 14. To appreciate the controversy, first we shall refer to the order of assessment framed against the Manoj Aggarwal, the person who has searched. Learned counsel for the revenue has drawn our attention to paragraph 2.7 to 2.10 from the order of block assessment order in case of Manoj Aggarwal which was framed on 29.8.2008. The s…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashwani Gupta

The appeal is dismissed

…held that the entire addition deserved to be deleted, particularly so, because the transactions also stood duly reflected in his regular returns. 3. The Tribunal, after referring to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers : 288 ITR 345 (Del), came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and, therefore, declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue/ appellant sought to question the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the principle…