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.

85

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 68Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 46ASection 69CSection 144BSection 153A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencerule 46asection 80iaddition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 37(1)section 133(6)section 69cincome-tax officersalarycommissioner (appeals)section 68

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…document in form of exchange deed now furnished by the appellant as additional evidence are vital and go to the root of the matter, the same are admitted under rule 46A to decide the issue on merit. 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 the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant as additional evidence is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Ther…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3165/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…document in form of exchange deed now furnished by the appellant as additional evidence are vital and go to the root of the matter, the same are admitted under rule 46A to decide the issue on merit. 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 the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant as additional evidence is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Ther…

M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2999/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…document in form of exchange deed now furnished by the appellant as additional evidence are vital and go to the root of the matter, the same are admitted under rule 46A to decide the issue on merit. 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 the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant as additional evidence is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Ther…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…document in form of exchange deed now furnished by the appellant as additional evidence are vital and go to the root of the matter, the same are admitted under rule 46A to decide the issue on merit. 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 the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant as additional evidence is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Ther…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2602/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…document in form of exchange deed now furnished by the appellant as additional evidence are vital and go to the root of the matter, the same are admitted under rule 46A to decide the issue on merit. 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 the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant as additional evidence is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Ther…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2601/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…document in form of exchange deed now furnished by the appellant as additional evidence are vital and go to the root of the matter, the same are admitted under rule 46A to decide the issue on merit. 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 the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant as additional evidence is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Ther…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 ITA No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCM0102D Assessee by : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue by : Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These two appeals by the d…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 ITA No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCM0102D Assessee by : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue by : Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These two appeals by the d…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mark Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction

ITA 3457/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Mark Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Circle-6(1), Flat No. 714, 89, Kemjunt New Delhi Chambers, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaecm7261Qw (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 36

…given adequate opportunity of being heard by AO and hence the additional evidence submitted before me is admitted which are crucial for adjudication of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal. In the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities Credits P. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del.) the jurisdictional High Court held that evidence crucial in disposal of the case can be admitted. Since, the document filed by the appellant before the CIT(A) is of the nature that may advance the interest of justice and show that there was no justification for addition made, the same need to be admitted and considered. Apart from the evid…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 799/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Katra, CIT, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

…ee was prevented by sufficient cause from 7 ITA 1013/Del/14 and ITA 799/Del/14 A.Y. 2005-06 Mrs Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi furnishing the evidence. He relied on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities Pvt.Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del.) and admitted additional evidence. We find no infirmity in the same. Thus ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground no.2 is on the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed franchisee commission. This issue is admittedly covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA 2409 to 2413/…

Smt. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1013/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Katra, CIT, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

…ee was prevented by sufficient cause from 7 ITA 1013/Del/14 and ITA 799/Del/14 A.Y. 2005-06 Mrs Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi furnishing the evidence. He relied on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities Pvt.Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del.) and admitted additional evidence. We find no infirmity in the same. Thus ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground no.2 is on the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed franchisee commission. This issue is admittedly covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA 2409 to 2413/…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rose Advertising P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2827/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

…al bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits P.Ltd. 332 ITR 396 at para 8 held as follows. "8. The aforesaid contention appears to be devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the CIT (A) had obtained remand report from the AO. While submitting his report, the AO had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterated the conte…

Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2293/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

…al bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits P.Ltd. 332 ITR 396 at para 8 held as follows. "8. The aforesaid contention appears to be devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the CIT (A) had obtained remand report from the AO. While submitting his report, the AO had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterated the conte…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajender Kumar Diwan, New Delhi

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

ITA 4575/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-4575/Del/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) ITO, vs Rajendra Kumar Diwan, Ward-26(3), Room No.314-D, 12/2, Diwan Estate, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. Bhagwati Garden, Uttam Nagar, (APPPELLANT) New Delhi-110059. PAN-AFTPD9081Q (RESPONDENT) Revenue by Sh.V.P.Mishra, Sr.DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 07.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement 10.08.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 24.0…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4961/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/S. Niit Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacn0085D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/s. NIIT Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAACN0085D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Respondent by Sh. Rohit Jain & Ms. Bhavita Kumar Date of hearing 05.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 20.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the Revenue is directed against order dated 05/07/2012 of learned Commissioner of Income-…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6387/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 80

…ng on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.” Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits P.Ltd. 332 ITR 396 at para 8 held as follows. "8. The aforesaid contention appears to be devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the CIT (A) had obtained remand report from the AO. While submitting his report, the AO had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterated the conte…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6386/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 80

…ng on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.” Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits P.Ltd. 332 ITR 396 at para 8 held as follows. "8. The aforesaid contention appears to be devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the CIT (A) had obtained remand report from the AO. While submitting his report, the AO had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterated the conte…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, ‘H’ Bench, Delhi in the case of JCIT vs. Venus Financial Services Ltd. reported in (2012) 21 taxmann.com 436 (Delhi) 84. The Assessee also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 396. 85. We have perused these decisions. These are distinguished on facts. When the Ld. DR has not disputed the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that sufficient time was not granted to the assessee to file the requisite details. He has also not disputed the finding that these documents are crucial for adjudicating this aspect. These were not the facts in t…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4076/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, ‘H’ Bench, Delhi in the case of JCIT vs. Venus Financial Services Ltd. reported in (2012) 21 taxmann.com 436 (Delhi) 84. The Assessee also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 396. 85. We have perused these decisions. These are distinguished on facts. When the Ld. DR has not disputed the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that sufficient time was not granted to the assessee to file the requisite details. He has also not disputed the finding that these documents are crucial for adjudicating this aspect. These were not the facts in t…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3596/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, ‘H’ Bench, Delhi in the case of JCIT vs. Venus Financial Services Ltd. reported in (2012) 21 taxmann.com 436 (Delhi) 84. The Assessee also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 396. 85. We have perused these decisions. These are distinguished on facts. When the Ld. DR has not disputed the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that sufficient time was not granted to the assessee to file the requisite details. He has also not disputed the finding that these documents are crucial for adjudicating this aspect. These were not the facts in t…