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

300 ITR 426High Court2008#2282 most cited

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

Assessments cannot be based merely on assumptions, suspicion, guesswork, or conjecture without corroborative material. Additions require evidence to support conclusions.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary · presumption · assumption · corroborative material · unexplained money · addition · assessment · guess work · suspicion · conjecture · irrelevant inadmissible material · section 153A · section 143(3) · section 68 · section 69 · section 132(4) · section 132(4A) · section 142(1) · section 69A

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

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

…(Guj) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) 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 work and…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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…

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/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: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…(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) 8.10 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…

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…(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) 8.10 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…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 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) 13.46 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…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 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) 13.46 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 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) 13.46 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…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 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) 13.46 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…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 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) 13.46 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…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) iv) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) v) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vi) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) viii) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 45 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 29. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing any corroborative material on record in support of such conclusion. It is settled position of law…

Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Sangli Circle, Sangli vs. Anand Developers, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 67/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel &
Section 143(3)Section 42

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.458/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Anand Developers, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Sangli. 365/3/2/2, Sharayu, Nagraj Colony, Vishrambaug, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AAQFA4833M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.67/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Sangli Circle, Sangli. Vs. Anand Developers, 1448, Rajaram Apartments, Timber Area, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AAQFA4833M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.15/PUN/2023 (A…

Anand Developers, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 458/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel &
Section 143(3)Section 42

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.458/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Anand Developers, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Sangli. 365/3/2/2, Sharayu, Nagraj Colony, Vishrambaug, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AAQFA4833M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.67/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Sangli Circle, Sangli. Vs. Anand Developers, 1448, Rajaram Apartments, Timber Area, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AAQFA4833M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.15/PUN/2023 (A…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…in support, reliance was placed on following decisions in case of Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 104 (Cal), DCIT v. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR 243 (Guj), Prakash Chand Nahtav. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP), CIT v. Salek Chand (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All), SMC Share Broker Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi), CIT v. JMD Computers & Communications (P.) Ltd.(2009) 180 Taxman 485 (Delhi), Krishna Textiles v. CIT (2009) 310 ITR 0227 (Guj) and CIT v. A.N. Dyaneswaran (2008) 297 ITR 135 (Mad). ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 42 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 61. It was f…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…in support, reliance was placed on following decisions in case of Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 104 (Cal), DCIT v. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR 243 (Guj), Prakash Chand Nahtav. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP), CIT v. Salek Chand (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All), SMC Share Broker Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi), CIT v. JMD Computers & Communications (P.) Ltd.(2009) 180 Taxman 485 (Delhi), Krishna Textiles v. CIT (2009) 310 ITR 0227 (Guj) and CIT v. A.N. Dyaneswaran (2008) 297 ITR 135 (Mad). ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 42 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 61. It was f…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…be made on the basis of the entries in the third parties books of account which are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…be made on the basis of the entries in the third parties books of account which are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…be made on the basis of the entries in the third parties books of account which are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…be made on the basis of the entries in the third parties books of account which are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by…