How many judgments cite CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.?

85 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (332 ITR 396), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 46A, Section 69C.

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.

332 ITR 396High Court2011#1344 most cited

What is CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must admit additional evidence if it is crucial for the proper disposal of the appeal, ensuring substantial justice to the appellant.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. · Rule 46A admission additional evidence · Commissioner (Appeals) powers · crucial for appeal disposal · Delhi High Court 2011 · Section 143(3) assessment · Section 68 cash credit · genuineness of transaction · assessee submission additional documents · substantial justice principle · 332 ITR 396 · appellate stage evidence

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 681

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 46A Section 69C Section 144B Section 153A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidence rule 46a section 80i addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction section 37(1)section 133(6)section 69c income-tax officer salary commissioner (appeals)section 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.

Kalasa Lakshmanashetty Mahesh, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 792/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Golyan, CA

Section 250

…nces are crucial and its consideration and appraisal would render the substantial justice to the appellant. The same deserve to be address. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Virgin Page 3 of 8 Securities and Credits P. Ltd. (201 I 332 ITR 396 (Del) wherein the Honble Court held that the CIT(A) should admit the additional evidence if he finds that the same is crucial for the disposal of the appeal. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the ease of Chandrakant Chanu Bhai Patel 202 Taxman 262 wherein it has been held that if additional evidence is without any blemish and in orde…

Sanjeev Mittal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…tional evidence under clause (c) & (d) of Rule 46A(1) of the Rules. In our opinion, the reply is in affirmative. This is because the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits (P) Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Delhi) wherein the Court held as under :- “Held that it was a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) obtained a remand report from the Assessing Officer. While submitting his report, the Assessing Officer had had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterat…

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2313/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 Mankind Pharma Limited DCIT 208 Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III Vs. Circle-1(1)(1) Okhla Industrial Estate S.O. Tehkand Meerut South East Delhi TAN/PAN: AAACM9401C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 08 02 2024 Date of pronouncement: 01 05 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-AM: The captioned…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5648/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

…1 M/s Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10] Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs M/s Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, New Delhi. 305, Aggarwal Arcade Plot No. 6, Sector-12 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. PAN- AACCA4888R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.; Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv.; & Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Department represented by Sh. P. Parveen Sidharth, CIT(DR); & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.03…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

Saptarshi Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 8 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3291/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Aaykar Bhavan, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Paral Village, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6828M Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Paral Village, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Advocate Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Advocate Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, SR DR

Section 143Section 250

…nce details. He further notes that in compliance with the earlier notices the assessee has submitted the details completely. In the circumstances, he admitted the additional evidence relying on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of (2011) 332 ITR 396, 202 taxmann 262 and other coordinate bench decision is holding that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. ii. On the merits of the case, on the addition under section 68 of ₹ 19,762,025/– he found ITA No. 3291 & 3293/Mum/2022 M/s Saptarshi Relators Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 13-14 that the addition of the above amount is incorrect the total unsecured…

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 2161/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

…concur with the submissions of the appellant. Further the additional evidences filed were relevant and vital that would go to the root of the matter while deciding the issues to which they relate. In the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities Credit P. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del) the Jurisdictional High Court has held that, evidence which is crucial in disposing of the case can be admitted. Since, the documents filed by the appellant as additional evidence are of the nature that may advance the interest of natural justice, the same need to be admitted and considered. Therefore, the documents filed as additional evid…

ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi vs. Roshan Lal Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 5150/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80C

…s involved in dispute with other communities in the period and his entire family was living in great fear and tension. Accepting the assessee’s explanation and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 396 (Del), the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence furnished before him for adjudication of issues involved. 5.1 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,73,33,666/- and Rs. 1,75,71,490/- being 40% of direct and indirect expenses out of Rs. 4,33,34,166/- and Rs. 4,39,28,726/- in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, the Ld. CIT(A) observed in pa…

ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi vs. Roshan Lal Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 5149/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80C

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…AO had submitted remand report dated 13/02/2012 & 22.10.2012. We find that CIT(A) for admission of additional evidences had relied on the decision 6 rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 396 (Delhi) and concluded that the admission of additional evidences was crucial for the disposal of appeal. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor has Revenue pointed that the required procedure was not followed by CIT(A) before admission of additional evidences. In such a situation, we find no reason to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Hersh Washesher Chadha, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle (International Taxation) - 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 123/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 69A

…equirement for making an application under Rule 46A for admission of addition evidences. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., 239 CTR 263 (Del. HC) 2. CIT Vs. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd., 332 ITR 396 (Del. HC) 3. Mayur Batra Vs. ACIT, ITA No.7586/Del/2019, order date 28.11.2022 (Del. Trib.) 6. He submitted, there cannot be any doubt regarding the credit entries of Rs.1,25,16,533/- as it has been transferred from 4 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 assessee’s bank account in Dubai to the NRO account in India. Further, explaining the source of the funds…

Nawany Corporation India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.539/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2014-15) Nawany Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. 384/1, Bandana 15Th Road, Bandra (West)Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aaacn-1471-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit 13(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak P. Tikekar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak P. TikekarFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

…mits that these additional evidences are crucial for deciding the issue raised in the appeal by the 5 assessee. For admission of additional evidences the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. 332 ITR 396 (Del) (ii) PCIT vs. Daljit Singh SRA, 247 Taxman 240 (P&H) 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed admission of additional evidences at this belated stage. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that no reason whatsoever has been given by the assessee for non-furnishing of the documents during assessment pro…

Axa France Vie, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 439/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 194DSection 201(1)Section 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19] AXA France Vie, Assistant Commissioner of Income 5th Floor, Office Tower, Tax, District Centre, Vs Circle Int. Taxation-1(1)(1), Saket, Select City Walk, Plot New Delhi No.A-3, New Delhi-110017 PAN-AAPCA9799J Assessee Revenue Stay Application No.112/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.439/DEL/2022) [Assessment Year: 2018-19] AXA France Vie, Assistant Commissioner of Income 5th Floor, Office Tower, Tax, District Centre, Vs Circle Int. Taxat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2399/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 68Section 69

…tter while deciding the issues to which they relate. Therefore, the documents now filed by the appellant as additional evidences are admitted under Rule 46A to decide the issues involved on merit. In this case of CIT vs Virgin Securities Credit P. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del.) the jurisdictional High Court has held that, evidence which is crucial in disposing of the case can be admitted. Since, the documents filed by the appellant as additional evidences are of the nature that may advance the interest of natural justice, the same need to be admitted and considered. Therefore, the documents filed as additional ev…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4777/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Quippo Energy (P.) Ltd., Circle-21(2), Room No.199C, D-2, Saket Palace, Saket, 1St Floor, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110017. I.P.Estate, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacq1675Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Govind Singhal, Sr.Dr Respondent By Smt. Alka Arren, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2021

Section 143(1)

…would enable the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal or for any other substantial cause." Similar view has been given in following decisions: - ITO -vs.- M/s.Xo Infotech Ltd. (ITA No.3342/DeV2013)(Ahd. ITAT) - CIT -vs- Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del ITAT) 1.5. As regards the above sundry balances, the brief facts of the same is as under: Symatic Engineering (P) Ltd (Rs. 11,70,000/-)-The balance outstanding on 31-03-2009 represents advances for purchases paid by cheque during the year, against which purchases have been made in the subsequent year. Debit balances of creditors on account o…

Shri Mahesh Yadav, A-225, Jai Nagar, Sikar Road, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur, Ward-4(3)

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

ITA 590/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 590/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke Mahesh Yadav, Ito, Vs. A-225, Jai Nagar, Sikar Road, Ward-4(3), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aatpy 9371 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri C.L. Yadav (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 15/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Admitting The Additional Evidence Furnished During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Under Rule 46A. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Issue On Merits. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 46,27,571/- Made By The Ao. On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited In The Saving Bank Account, Ignoring

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 148

…itional evidence. 1.8 The assessee also respectfully draw your honors kind attention towards the following decisions which support the contention of the appellant – 6 ITA 590/JP/2019_ Mahesh Yadav Vs ITO 1. CIT v. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del) 2. Chandrakant Chanu Bhai Patel 202 Taxman 262(Del) 3. Avan Gidwani Vs ACTT I.T.A. No. 5138/Mum/2015(ITAT Mumbai) 4. Abhay Kumar Shroff V/s. ITO 63 ITD 144(Pat) (ITAT Patna It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katji, 167 ITR 471 (SC) have held that when technical considera…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 12 (1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4261/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Singh, CIT, DR

…the assessee and, therefore, those additional evidences should have been admitted. For the above proposition, he relied on the various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credit (P) Ltd., 332 ITR 396 and CIT vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd., 351 ITR 57 (Del). He submitted that once the CIT(A) sought a remand report from the AO qua the additional evidence, the same should have been admitted. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Inderpal Chawla, ITA No.1424/2010 and the decis…

Kuldeep, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6166/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantita.No.6166/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2011-2012

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: -None-

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : “SMC-2” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6166/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Shri Kuldeep, The Income Tax Officer, 211, Daryapur, [vs. Ward – 37(4), North Delhi. PIN – 110 039. New Delhi. PAN BOZPK1258Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate. For Revenue : -None- Date of Hearing : 27.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi, Dated 12.06.2019,…

M/S. Gayatri Seva Sansthan, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Gayatri Seva Sansthan, Vs Addl. Cit, 155, G.T. Road, Range-1, Panchwati, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaatg1960H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)

…the disposal of the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) should have admitted these additional evidences and decided the issue. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credit (P) Ltd., 332 ITR 396 (Del). 15. So far as the allegation of the AO that the assessee failed to establish the identity and credit worthiness of Mr. Raju Khan is concerned, he submitted that the assessee had filed copy of confirmation and the response from the bank providing copy of PAN and bank statement which clearly establishes the identity and credit worthiness of…