CIT v. Sunita Mansingha

393 ITR 121Supreme Court of India2017#2910 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunita Mansingha authority for?

When estimating construction costs or expenditure for assessment, local PWD rates must be preferred over CPWD rates, as CPWD rates are generally higher.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunita Mansingha · 393 ITR 121 · Section 142A · Section 69B · Section 69C · valuation of construction expenditure · local PWD rates · CPWD rates · estimated valuation · unexplained expenditure · approved valuer

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 153DSection 69CSection 142ASection 153ASection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 38retraction of statementsection 131(1a)section 65bsection 65section 69bsection 153a(1)(b)section 271aabon-moneysection 260section 260a

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunita Mansingha

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1594/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller DCIT / ACIT (Central)-2 बनाम/ SCO 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building NAC Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADAFS-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) DCIT / ACIT (Central)-2 Sar…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1593/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

…it of self-supervision has also not been granted. This is against the settled position that local PWD rates are to be preferred over CPWD rates and CPWD rates are generally higher than local PWD rates (as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Rajesh Mahajan 50 Taxmann.com 206). In the case of Rajesh Mahajan (supra), it was observed by Hon’ble Court that 15% of valuation could be allowed for personal supervision. It is another fact that the assessee has engaged two contractors for construction of 29 units. The payment to th…

SARAF THE JEWELLER, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller DCIT / ACIT (Central)-2 बनाम/ SCO 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building NAC Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADAFS-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) DCIT / ACIT (Central)-2 Sar…

SARAF THE JEWELLER, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

…it of self-supervision has also not been granted. This is against the settled position that local PWD rates are to be preferred over CPWD rates and CPWD rates are generally higher than local PWD rates (as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Rajesh Mahajan 50 Taxmann.com 206). In the case of Rajesh Mahajan (supra), it was observed by Hon’ble Court that 15% of valuation could be allowed for personal supervision. It is another fact that the assessee has engaged two contractors for construction of 29 units. The payment to th…

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…made merely on the basis of estimated valuation. This is against the settled position that local PWD rates are to be preferred over CPWD rates and CPWD rates are generally higher than local PWD rates (as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Rajesh Mahajan 50 Taxmann.com 206). In the case of Rajesh Mahajan (supra), it was observed by Hon’ble Court that 15% of valuation could be allowed for personal supervision. As against this, the assessee has furnished valuation report from an independent approved valuer who has valued…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…made merely on the basis of estimated valuation. This is against the settled position that local PWD rates are to be preferred over CPWD rates and CPWD rates are generally higher than local PWD rates (as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Rajesh Mahajan 50 Taxmann.com 206). In the case of Rajesh Mahajan (supra), it was observed by Hon’ble Court that 15% of valuation could be allowed for personal supervision. As against this, the assessee has furnished valuation report from an independent approved valuer who has valued…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…made merely on the basis of estimated valuation. This is against the settled position that local PWD rates are to be preferred over CPWD rates and CPWD rates are generally higher than local PWD rates (as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Rajesh Mahajan 50 Taxmann.com 206). In the case of Rajesh Mahajan (supra), it was observed by Hon’ble Court that 15% of valuation could be allowed for personal supervision. As against this, the assessee has furnished valuation report from an independent approved valuer who has valued…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024
For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 69

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डॉ. एस.सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA. No. 469 & 470/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear :2011-12 & 2012-13 The DCIT Central Circle-1 Jaipur बनाम Vs. Shri Mahaveer Kumar Jain 65, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABKPJ 0217F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent C.O.No. 7 & 8 (Arising out of आयकरअपील सं. / ITA. No. 469 & 470/JP/2…

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 (AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT (Central)-3, Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia बनाम/ Indore Rajbeer Roadlines, Vs. Pandhana Road Borgaon Khurd, Khandwa (PAN: AGIPB6002F) (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ACIT(Central) बनाम/ Rajbeer Roadlines, Ujjain (Stationed at Vs. Pandhana Road Indore)/ Borgaon Khurd, Khandwa DCIT (Central)-3, (PAN: AGIPB6002F) Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Reve…

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 (AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT (Central)-3, Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia बनाम/ Indore Rajbeer Roadlines, Vs. Pandhana Road Borgaon Khurd, Khandwa (PAN: AGIPB6002F) (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ACIT(Central) बनाम/ Rajbeer Roadlines, Ujjain (Stationed at Vs. Pandhana Road Indore)/ Borgaon Khurd, Khandwa DCIT (Central)-3, (PAN: AGIPB6002F) Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Reve…

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 (AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT (Central)-3, Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia बनाम/ Indore Rajbeer Roadlines, Vs. Pandhana Road Borgaon Khurd, Khandwa (PAN: AGIPB6002F) (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ACIT(Central) बनाम/ Rajbeer Roadlines, Ujjain (Stationed at Vs. Pandhana Road Indore)/ Borgaon Khurd, Khandwa DCIT (Central)-3, (PAN: AGIPB6002F) Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Reve…

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 402 & 403/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS बनाम The Pr. CIT C/o Sawan Traders, India Rohtak Shop No. 42, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Haryana, India-136027 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAIAS8054R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv…

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 402 & 403/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS बनाम The Pr. CIT C/o Sawan Traders, India Rohtak Shop No. 42, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Haryana, India-136027 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAIAS8054R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv…

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

…h reopening has been directed u/s 150 of the Income Tax 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the objections of the assessee in summary manner ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Mann Singh as reported in 393 ITR 121. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” Golden Tulip Hospitality P. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 3. Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 265/Asr/2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 11.05.2022 has erred in confirming the ad…

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

…h reopening has been directed u/s 150 of the Income Tax 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the objections of the assessee in summary manner ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Mann Singh as reported in 393 ITR 121. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” Golden Tulip Hospitality P. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 3. Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 265/Asr/2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 11.05.2022 has erred in confirming the ad…

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

…D rates and further deduction for self supervision, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements where it is held that a deduction of at least 20% should be given to reach the state PWD rates from the valuation done on the basis of CPWD rates. 393 ITR 121 (SC) CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha 3. However, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the local Public Works Department rates are to be applied and adopted in place of Central Public Works Department rates, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment on this issue on merits. The appeal fails and is dismissed. 29…

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

…the DVO. 7.11 Whether the observations in the case of Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121 (SC) can be the basis to hold that the reference to the DVO is valid in the present case, is the next aspect on which we need to delve. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha 393 ITR 121 (SC), the facts were that during the search conducted at residence of the Sri K. Satish Kumar, Bangalore Page 44 of 47 assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had half share in a firm and a farm house-cum-swimming pool was constructed by the firm. The Assessing Officer referred the properties, namely, residential house as well a…

JAYANT VANECHAND VASA,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed

ITA 982/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153A

…uting the value of the property. In principle, it is a fairly settled position that while determining the value, the recourse should be taken to the State PWD rates rather than Central PWD rates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha (2017) 393 ITR 121 (SC) accorded its imprimatur to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court approving the view taken by the Tribunal, wherein local PWD rates were held to be applicable for valuation of property rather than the Central PWD rates. In view of the fact that the value has to be determined on the basis of State PWD rates and the ld. AR contended that t…

JAYANT VANECHAND VASA,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed

ITA 981/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153A

…uting the value of the property. In principle, it is a fairly settled position that while determining the value, the recourse should be taken to the State PWD rates rather than Central PWD rates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha (2017) 393 ITR 121 (SC) accorded its imprimatur to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court approving the view taken by the Tribunal, wherein local PWD rates were held to be applicable for valuation of property rather than the Central PWD rates. In view of the fact that the value has to be determined on the basis of State PWD rates and the ld. AR contended that t…

JAYANT VANECHAND VASA,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed

ITA 979/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153A

…uting the value of the property. In principle, it is a fairly settled position that while determining the value, the recourse should be taken to the State PWD rates rather than Central PWD rates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha (2017) 393 ITR 121 (SC) accorded its imprimatur to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court approving the view taken by the Tribunal, wherein local PWD rates were held to be applicable for valuation of property rather than the Central PWD rates. In view of the fact that the value has to be determined on the basis of State PWD rates and the ld. AR contended that t…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3