CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary

305 ITR 245High Court2008#1207 most cited

What is CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions based on assumptions or suspicion; there must be material evidence on record to support any conclusions drawn for assessment purposes.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary · section 143(3) · section 153A · section 153C · section 292C · section 69C · addition without evidence · no material on record · assumptions by AO · corroborating evidence needed · suspicion cannot be basis of addition

Also reported as

169 Taxmann 130214 CTR 51

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 132Section 292CSection 153ASection 69CSection 133ASection 153C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153(c)(1)section 127(1)abatement of assessmentsection 94peak credit theorysection 153(c)transferee companysection 132(4a)section 131(1a)section 292csection 114section 153a(1)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 335/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…l on the ground that there was no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer had reached the conclusion that the figure ‘48’ was to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similar analogy has been laid down in the decision of Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (30 ITR 181) rejected additions without there being any adverse evidence and where the addition was made on suspicion without countering affidavit / statement on record. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) rejected additions which were made without corrobo…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 334/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…l on the ground that there was no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer had reached the conclusion that the figure ‘48’ was to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similar analogy has been laid down in the decision of Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (30 ITR 181) rejected additions without there being any adverse evidence and where the addition was made on suspicion without countering affidavit / statement on record. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) rejected additions which were made without corrobo…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 333/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…l on the ground that there was no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer had reached the conclusion that the figure ‘48’ was to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similar analogy has been laid down in the decision of Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (30 ITR 181) rejected additions without there being any adverse evidence and where the addition was made on suspicion without countering affidavit / statement on record. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) rejected additions which were made without corrobo…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 330/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…l on the ground that there was no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer had reached the conclusion that the figure ‘48’ was to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similar analogy has been laid down in the decision of Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (30 ITR 181) rejected additions without there being any adverse evidence and where the addition was made on suspicion without countering affidavit / statement on record. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) rejected additions which were made without corrobo…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 329/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…l on the ground that there was no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer had reached the conclusion that the figure ‘48’ was to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similar analogy has been laid down in the decision of Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (30 ITR 181) rejected additions without there being any adverse evidence and where the addition was made on suspicion without countering affidavit / statement on record. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) rejected additions which were made without corrobo…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,DELHI-8, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI vs. POOJA MITTAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1336/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Pooja Mittal B-33, Defece Central Circle Colony, Delhi-110024 Delhi Pan No. Ahapm5624K Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Respondent Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 DCIT Vs. Pooja Mittal B-33, Defece Central Circle Colony, Delhi-110024 Delhi PAN No. AHAPM5624K Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Respondent Sh. Akshat Jain, CA Sh. Rajat Jain, CA Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC dated 05.12.204 for A.Y. 2014-15 in deleting the addi…

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882 to 887/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2017-18 Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of #6, 1st Floor, Ratan Apartments, Income Tax, Taralabalu Road, MLA Layout, Circle – 2(1), Ganganagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN – AMCPR 4790 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR & Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Prono…

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882 to 887/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2017-18 Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of #6, 1st Floor, Ratan Apartments, Income Tax, Taralabalu Road, MLA Layout, Circle – 2(1), Ganganagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN – AMCPR 4790 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR & Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Prono…

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882 to 887/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2017-18 Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of #6, 1st Floor, Ratan Apartments, Income Tax, Taralabalu Road, MLA Layout, Circle – 2(1), Ganganagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN – AMCPR 4790 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR & Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Prono…

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882 to 887/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2017-18 Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of #6, 1st Floor, Ratan Apartments, Income Tax, Taralabalu Road, MLA Layout, Circle – 2(1), Ganganagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN – AMCPR 4790 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR & Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Prono…

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882 to 887/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2017-18 Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of #6, 1st Floor, Ratan Apartments, Income Tax, Taralabalu Road, MLA Layout, Circle – 2(1), Ganganagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN – AMCPR 4790 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR & Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Prono…

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882 to 887/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2017-18 Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of #6, 1st Floor, Ratan Apartments, Income Tax, Taralabalu Road, MLA Layout, Circle – 2(1), Ganganagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN – AMCPR 4790 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR & Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Prono…

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…l Appliances Co. Pvt .Ltd., Mumbai, vs. DCIT, central circle-44, Mumbai, ITAT,\n'I' bench, Mumbai, assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07,2007-08, 2008-09& 2009-10\ndated 31-12-2015. (page no. 7,summary of legal position:\n8.1 CIT v/s. Ved Prakash Choudhary (2008) 305 ITR 245 (Del), wherein it is held that in\nthe absence of corroborative material, the additions made one the basis of sketchy\ndocuments which were unproved cannot be sustained in law. Reliance was also placed of\nthe decision in CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal 231 Taxman 392 wherein it is held that unless the\namounts stated in the documents were actually paid, i…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…al in absence of any corroborative evidence found from the possession of the appellant, cannot form basis for making any addition. i) 291 ITR 36 (Del) CIT v KulwantRai ii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal iii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT v. GirishChaudhary iv) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. VedParkashChaudhary v) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta vi) 383 ITR 320 (Del) CIT v. VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd. vii) 393 ITR 276 (Bom) CIT v. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. viii) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. ix) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT v. Jai Pal Aggarwal x) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. HarmohinderKaur v. DCIT xi) 165 TTJ 145 (Del)…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, DELHI, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2753/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 payment over and above the stated amount in the agreement. No further enquiry has been made with the sellers as well. 34. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 held as under:- “During the search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, two memorandums of understanding were recovered. memorandums were entered into between the assessee, R and M. In terms of the memorandum, the assessee had paid Rs.25 lakhs each towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs.123…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, DELHI, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD,, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2752/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 payment over and above the stated amount in the agreement. No further enquiry has been made with the sellers as well. 34. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 held as under:- “During the search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, two memorandums of understanding were recovered. memorandums were entered into between the assessee, R and M. In terms of the memorandum, the assessee had paid Rs.25 lakhs each towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs.123…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, DELHI, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2751/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 payment over and above the stated amount in the agreement. No further enquiry has been made with the sellers as well. 34. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 held as under:- “During the search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, two memorandums of understanding were recovered. memorandums were entered into between the assessee, R and M. In terms of the memorandum, the assessee had paid Rs.25 lakhs each towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs.123…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COPANY PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2473/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 payment over and above the stated amount in the agreement. No further enquiry has been made with the sellers as well. 34. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 held as under:- “During the search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, two memorandums of understanding were recovered. memorandums were entered into between the assessee, R and M. In terms of the memorandum, the assessee had paid Rs.25 lakhs each towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs.123…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2472/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 payment over and above the stated amount in the agreement. No further enquiry has been made with the sellers as well. 34. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 held as under:- “During the search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, two memorandums of understanding were recovered. memorandums were entered into between the assessee, R and M. In terms of the memorandum, the assessee had paid Rs.25 lakhs each towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs.123…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2324/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 payment over and above the stated amount in the agreement. No further enquiry has been made with the sellers as well. 34. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 held as under:- “During the search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, two memorandums of understanding were recovered. memorandums were entered into between the assessee, R and M. In terms of the memorandum, the assessee had paid Rs.25 lakhs each towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs.123…

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5