CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal

300 ITR 426High Court2008#2306 most cited

What is CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on third-party documents without examining the third party and establishing a direct link to the assessee, ensuring compliance with natural justice. When the assessee offers a plausible explanation, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove the apparent is not real.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shri Girish Chaudhary · CIT v. Salek Chand · 296 ITR 619 · 300 ITR 426 · Section 153A · Section 68 · Section 69 · third party documents · onus of proof · natural justice · cross-examination · unexplained additions

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 142(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 44afvoluntary admissionsection 132(5)jewellery found during searchabatement of assessmentthird party informationsection 100section 153(c)(1)section 158b(b)section 150unexplained jewellerysection 94

Judgments citing CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…rahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) 41 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work…

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 211/ASR/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250(6)Section 263

…and as such there is no question to link up all those amount with the books of the assessee. He further relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the 15 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 case of CIT v. Salek Chand Agarwal [2008] 300 ITR 426 (Alld. HC) and upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT reported 171 ITR 532 (P&H) and stated that the cash credit entry in the book of firm in the name of partner cannot be assessed as income from undisclosed source of the individual partner. 24. As such, relying on the above judgment…

USHA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 44(6), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ee on merits are hereby allowed. 3. Where assessee made a possible explanation and department is not accepting the same then onus is on revenue to prove that apparent is not real, CIT V. DAULATRAM RAWATMULL 87 ITR 349 (SC) (97-105) CIT V Salek Chand Agarwala -300 ITR 426(ALL) (106-107)” 8.1 Further, the Ld. AR without prejudice to the above contention submitted relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Limited vs. ACIT, writ petition (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 and 1742 of 2020 (order dated 19.11.2024), which held that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax fo…

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

…placed on the below\nmentioned cases The aforesaid law laid down is supported by the following\njudgments:-\nBangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT 224 CTR 62\nODCIT V. Mahendra Ambalal Patel 40 DTR 243\n•Prakash Chand Nahta V. CIT 301 ITR 134\nCIT V. Salek chand 300 ITR 426 (AII)\nSMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del)\n○JMD Computers 20DTR 317\nAmarjit Singh Bakshi 263 ITR 217\nKrishna Textiles 11 DTR 217\nA.N. Dyaneswaran {2008} 214 CTR (Mad) 482\n\n1.11.iii Unjustified Identification of \"Virendra Sharma Ji A2\" with the Assessee:\n\n• Ld. DRP, without any valid or concrete basis, has concluded that the entry\n\…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO,WARD-4, BULANDSHAHR

ITA 2898/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) x) xi) xii) xiii) xiv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT VS. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. 861TD 13 (Del) т™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran 82 ITD 85 (Mum) т™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.20…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9896/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9317/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

SANJEEV KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 filed by the Revenue is partly

ITA 8590/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT VS. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) т™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) т™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) xi) xii…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR UP vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8444/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8443/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

ITA 8442/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT VS. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) т™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) т™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) xi) xii…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1553/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1011/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ty without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 5…

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

ITA 173/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 250

…ove contentions the reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents:  Mangilal Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 163 Taxman 399 (Rajasthan)  Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (Bom).  Salek Chand Agarwal v. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 426 (All.)  Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Ltd. V. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann 761 19. In view of the above, the addition made deserves to be deleted.” 22 Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur 31. The Ld. AR has vehemently argued that except doubting the documents for unknown reasons, nothing has been brought on record to controvert these documentary evidences wh…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…li Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…li Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…li Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…li Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011…

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…(2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 4.32 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess w…

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3