CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh

309 ITR 233High Court2009#2101 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh authority for?

The full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48 refers to the amount stated in the sale deed and cannot be substituted by the market value or a valuation by the DVO under Section 55A, unless there is evidence that the assessee actually received a consideration in excess of the stated amount.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh · Section 48 · full value of consideration · capital gains computation · stated sale consideration · DVO valuation · Section 55A · market value substitution · fair market value · Section 50C · Section 45

Also reported as

176 Taxmann 252

Sections most often in play

Section 48Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 147Section 50CSection 55ASection 10(34)Section 115JB(2) Explanation 1
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 45(1)section 271(l)full value of considerationsection 48valuation of sharessection 156dumb documentstransfer of capital assetsection 132(4a)section 50csection 50section 45

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Urvashi Talla, New Delhi

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3820/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Bahel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142ASection 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3823/Del/2014 A.Y. : 2005-06 DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), VS. Smt. Usha Rani Talla, NEW DELHI B-5, Near Durga Mandir, Moti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015 (PAN: AEBRP3546P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. No. 3820/Del/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), VS. Urvashi Talla, NEW DELHI B-5, Near Durga Mandir, Moti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015 (PAN: ADTPT5304J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. Nagesh Bahel, A…

Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5828/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…(Jaipur) viii. Gyan Chand Batra vs. ITO [2010] 6 ITR(T) 147 (Jaipur) ix. Raj Babbar vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai Trib.) x. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the case laws relied by t…

Smt. Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)

…(Jaipur) viii. Gyan Chand Batra vs. ITO [2010] 6 ITR(T) 147 (Jaipur) ix. Raj Babbar vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai Trib.) x. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) 6 I.T.A No. 2235/Del/2016 6. The Ld. AR further submitted th…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…t value but must be taken to be the price bargained by the parties to the sale. He referred and relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 66 ITR 622/– and 131 ITR 597. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 309 ITR 233 (Del) wherein it has been categorically held that the provisions of section 48 of the act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deed as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. He further referred to the plethora of the decision to support its contention. He therefor…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…t value but must be taken to be the price bargained by the parties to the sale. He referred and relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 66 ITR 622/– and 131 ITR 597. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 309 ITR 233 (Del) wherein it has been categorically held that the provisions of section 48 of the act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deed as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. He further referred to the plethora of the decision to support its contention. He therefor…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…t value but must be taken to be the price bargained by the parties to the sale. He referred and relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 66 ITR 622/– and 131 ITR 597. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 309 ITR 233 (Del) wherein it has been categorically held that the provisions of section 48 of the act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deed as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. He further referred to the plethora of the decision to support its contention. He therefor…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…t value but must be taken to be the price bargained by the parties to the sale. He referred and relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 66 ITR 622/– and 131 ITR 597. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 309 ITR 233 (Del) wherein it has been categorically held that the provisions of section 48 of the act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deed as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. He further referred to the plethora of the decision to support its contention. He therefor…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…t value but must be taken to be the price bargained by the parties to the sale. He referred and relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 66 ITR 622/– and 131 ITR 597. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 309 ITR 233 (Del) wherein it has been categorically held that the provisions of section 48 of the act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deed as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. He further referred to the plethora of the decision to support its contention. He therefor…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…t value but must be taken to be the price bargained by the parties to the sale. He referred and relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 66 ITR 622/– and 131 ITR 597. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 309 ITR 233 (Del) wherein it has been categorically held that the provisions of section 48 of the act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deed as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. He further referred to the plethora of the decision to support its contention. He therefor…

M3M India Holdings, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Faridabad

In the result, Ground No.3 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2691/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Bharath JanartharanFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-D.R
Section 132(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 234B

…the parties to the Sale. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 66 ITR 622 (SC), Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Smt Nilofer I. Singh 309 ITR 233 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Shakuntala Devi 316 ITR 46 (Del.). Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that addition is wholly unjustified. 17. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that Addendum to the Agreement was ex…

Shri Ashok Kumar Ganwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 450/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)
Section 147Section 234BSection 50C

…value consideration adopted by the AO is less than 15% which is within tolerance range up to 15% as considered by various courts. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Nilofar I. Singh 309 ITR 233. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO duly complied with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act as the issue of Smt. Rukmani Devi Ganwani & Others vs. ITO value was referred to the DVO and after considering the report of the DVO the AO has adopted lesser value as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. He has relied up…

Rukmani Devi Ganwani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 498/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)
Section 147Section 234BSection 50C

…value consideration adopted by the AO is less than 15% which is within tolerance range up to 15% as considered by various courts. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Nilofar I. Singh 309 ITR 233. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO duly complied with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act as the issue of Smt. Rukmani Devi Ganwani & Others vs. ITO value was referred to the DVO and after considering the report of the DVO the AO has adopted lesser value as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. He has relied up…

Kalva Umadevi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhpatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 1Section 148Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

…ing of full value of consideration mentioned in different provisions of the Act except in s. 48, one will have to consider the value of consideration as specified in sale deed. —CIT vs. Smt. Niofer I. Singh (2009) 22 (Del) 277: (2008) 14 DTR (Del) 108: (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del) relied on. (Para 7.1) In Explanation to s. 54F(1), it is mentioned that net consideration means the full value a consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The meaning of full value of consideration in Exp…

Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

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

ITA 2440/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…ning of full value of consideration mentioned in different provisions of the Act except in s. 48, one will have to consider it value of consideration as specified in sale deed. —CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 22 (Del) 277: (2008) 14 DTR (Del) 108: (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del)relied on. (Para 7.1) In Explanation to s. 54F(1), it is mentioned that net consideration means the full value a consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The meaning of full value of consideration in Expl…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Pipes Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4924/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, CAs
Section 48Section 50CSection 52

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2005-06 DCIT, Circle- 13(2), vs M/s Jindal Pipes Ltd. Plot No.5, 2nd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACJ2055K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR Respondent by: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, CAs Date of hearing: 01.08.2018 Date of pronouncement: 01.08.2018 O R D E R PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 07/05/2015 in Appeal No. 150/2012-13 passed…

Sh. Anil Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3777/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle -5(1), New Delhi Sh. Anil Jain, B- 2/18, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaipj2615C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 55A

…icer, the assessee made detailed submission objecting the fair market value adopted for computing the capital gain. In the submission, the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Nilofer I Singh, (2009) 309 ITR 233 ( Delhi). The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not file any objection before the Ld. Valuation Officer for determination of the fair market value of the property. Accordingly, he computed the capital gain on sale of the property as under: 3 Fair Market Value of the Property As de…

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

…) • 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: 89 ITD 586 (Del.) • Bigjos Stores (P) Limited v. ACIT: 106 Taxman 127 (Del.) 21. Clarifying the intention of legislature, Mr. Vohra submitted that, wherever the legislature intended to substitute the actual consideration with…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3743/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, ITO, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AASPM6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 ACIT, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. PAN : AASPM6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.257/Del/2009 (In ITA No.2997/Del/2009) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, ACIT, Circle- 24(1), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAS…

Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3307/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, ITO, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AASPM6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 ACIT, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. PAN : AASPM6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.257/Del/2009 (In ITA No.2997/Del/2009) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, ACIT, Circle- 24(1), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAS…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 2997/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, ITO, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AASPM6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 ACIT, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. PAN : AASPM6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.257/Del/2009 (In ITA No.2997/Del/2009) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, ACIT, Circle- 24(1), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAS…