CIT vs. Puneet Sabherwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Delhi), CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

309 ITR 240High Court2009#7857 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 48Section 115JBSection 115JB(2) Explanation 1Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 1956Section 227(1A) of Companies Act

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 156dumb documentssection 132(4a)reasoned orderdocuments seizedincome-tax officerunexplained investmentsection 153cincriminating materialsection 271(1)(c)undisclosed income

Judgments citing CIT vs. Puneet Sabherwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Delhi), CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 50C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी "व"म "संह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private The DCIT बनाम Limited Central Circle-2 B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Chandigarh Nagar Mohali, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D…

SHIVI HOLDINGS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, G-16, Marina Acade, Circle-23(1), Connaught Circus, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco2664H

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Asish Chandra Mohanty, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…7) 66 ITR 622 (SC) and CITvs. Gillanders Arbuthonot and Co., Ltd (1973) 87 Shivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd ITR 407 (SC) and also the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nilofer I. Singh-309 ITR 233 (Del) and Dev Kumar Jain vs. ITO & ANR (2009) 309 ITR 240 (Del)" 9. The contention of the assessee has been examined The shares that have been sold was listed and quoted at the stock exchange. The assessee's average cost price per share comes to Rs. 335.53 (as per the books of accounts). These shares have been transferred to the group companies M/s RCH Holdings Pvt. Ltd. at a price of Rs. 335 per share…

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 206/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…r and a willing seller merely based on book value or fair market value. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020…

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 205/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…r and a willing seller merely based on book value or fair market value. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020…

ATUL KUMAR ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1395/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…r and a willing seller merely based on book value or fair market value. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, NEW DELHI vs. ATUL KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1931/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…r and a willing seller merely based on book value or fair market value. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. RAJIV GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

ITA 1164/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…r and a willing seller merely based on book value or fair market value. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws :- a. CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC)-para 4,7,10 b. Dev Kumar lain v. Income-tax Officer [2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi HC)-para 8 c. Arjun Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 403 ITR 354 (Delhi HC)-para 22,23,24,28 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 applies squarely because no 20 ITA No.1931/Del./2020…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JINDAL PIPES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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

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

…matter to the valuation officer. 8. We are convinced with the arguments of Ld. AR, basing on the decisions reported in CIT vs. Puneet Sabherwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Delhi), CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal (2013) 351 ITR 20 (Delhi), Dev Kumar Jain vs. ITO (2009) 309 ITR 240 (Delhi), CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT vs. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Prem Nath Nagpal (2007) 214 CTR 51 (Delhi), that no addition can be made merely on the basis of valuation report and fair market value cannot be substituted for actual consideration received. 9. In these circumstances, learn…

SH. ANIL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

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

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

…Assessing Officer was not justified in computing the capital gain adopting fair market value of the property at Rs.3,91,53,000/-. In support of his contention, he relied on the following case laws: 1. Dev Kumar Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, (2009) 309 ITR 240 (Del) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Nilofer I Singh, (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan INDL. (2014) 367 ITR 238 (Guj) 5 3.4 On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the case immovable property has been transferred and, thus, full value of consideration was to be adopted as speci…

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…• CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Others: 250 ITR 531 (Del.) • CIT V. Kami Singh 256 ITR 165 (Del) • CIT V. Smt. Sushila Devi 256 ITR 179 (Del.) • CIT v. Nilofer I. Singh: 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) • CIT v. Nilofer I Singh :309 ITR 233 (Del.) • Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO : 309 ITR 240 (Del.) • Sanjay Chawla v. ITO: 89 ITD 586 (Del.) • Bigjos Stores (P) Limited v. ACIT: 106 Taxman 127 (Del.) 21. Clarifying the intention of legislature, Mr. Vohra submitted that, wherever the legislature intended to substitute the actual consideration with the fair market value, provision to the said effect has been specifically prescribed in th…

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.341/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, 5th Vs. DCIT-10(1), Mumbai Floor, Windsor, Off. CST Road, Near Vidya Nagri, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAFCA 5315 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. Advocate याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel सुनवाई…

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5330/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Voltas Ltd. Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas House-A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Vs. Rd, Chincpokli, Mumbai-40020 Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Rd, Vs. Mumbai-40020 Chincpokli, Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas (Ar) Revenue By Shri Asghar Zain (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 154

…but only means full value of consideration actually received by the transferor. In this regard reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt Nilofer I Singh 309 ITR 233 and also upon Dev Kuamr Jain vs. ITO & Anr., 309 ITR 240 (Del). It was also submitted that in section 55A, power to make reference for valuation for ascertaining cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 is not available. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 (Bom) & Amiya Bala Paul 262 ITR 407(SC). 3.6. Lastly, it…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DIVYA JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

ITA 4315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Mohsin Alam, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4315/Del/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle-03, VS. Smt. Divya Jain, Room No. 355, 3rd floor, C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Jhnadewalan Extension, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) New Delhi – 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. No. 355/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 4315/Del/2011) A.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Divya Jain, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-03, 3rd C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Room No. 355, floor, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) Jhnadewalan Extension, New…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR MALIK, MEERUT

ITA 3871/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)Section 34ASection 55A

…15/D/2014 7 Bhola Nath Mazumdar (221 ITR 608) by the Gauhati High Court, the purpose of section 55A is not empower the AO to make a roving and fishing enquiries. Reference is also invited to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dev Kumar Jain (309 ITR 240) which held that in case there was nothing on record to show that an assessee had received a consideration for the sale of property in excess of what had been shown in the agreement to sell, the actual sale consideration recorded in the agreement to sell could not be substituted by the value of property arrived at by the DVO u/s 55A. The rational…

CIT vs. Puneet Sabherwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Delhi), CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal (309 ITR 240) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax