Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd.

VIKAS SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

…learned CIT (A) is, therefore, upheld dismissing this appeal filed by the revenue.” 8.1. Further, the reliance is placed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Lahsa Construction Pvt.Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that “addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report”. 9. In the light of above-mentioned binding precedents, I hereby, direct the AO to delete the impugned penatly. Grounds raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Orde…

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

…sulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on precedents holding that violation of natural justice renders the assessment void. The Ld. AR cited the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lasha Construction Pvt. Ltd. 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) wherein it is held that addition cannot be made solely on the basis of the report of the DVO. It is pointed out by the Ld. AR that the property in question is jointly co-owned by her brother Mr. Janardhan Kapoor and sister Ms. Poonam Sachdev in whose cases assessments have been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. In both the cases…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

…difference between the cost of construction determined by the learned district valuation Officer and the cost of construction incurred by the assessee. 34. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT Vs. Sadhana Gupta 352 ITR 595 for this proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT – A, remand report was submitted by the AO on 15/7/2015 wherein para number 2.2 it was specifically stated that the reference to the valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction was made only on the basis that s…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

…difference between the cost of construction determined by the learned district valuation Officer and the cost of construction incurred by the assessee. 34. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT Vs. Sadhana Gupta 352 ITR 595 for this proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT – A, remand report was submitted by the AO on 15/7/2015 wherein para number 2.2 it was specifically stated that the reference to the valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction was made only on the basis that s…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

…difference between the cost of construction determined by the learned district valuation Officer and the cost of construction incurred by the assessee. 34. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT Vs. Sadhana Gupta 352 ITR 595 for this proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT – A, remand report was submitted by the AO on 15/7/2015 wherein para number 2.2 it was specifically stated that the reference to the valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction was made only on the basis that s…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

…difference between the cost of construction determined by the learned district valuation Officer and the cost of construction incurred by the assessee. 34. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT Vs. Sadhana Gupta 352 ITR 595 for this proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT – A, remand report was submitted by the AO on 15/7/2015 wherein para number 2.2 it was specifically stated that the reference to the valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction was made only on the basis that s…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

…difference between the cost of construction determined by the learned district valuation Officer and the cost of construction incurred by the assessee. 34. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT Vs. Sadhana Gupta 352 ITR 595 for this proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT – A, remand report was submitted by the AO on 15/7/2015 wherein para number 2.2 it was specifically stated that the reference to the valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction was made only on the basis that s…

BABLI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

…difference between the cost of construction determined by the learned district valuation Officer and the cost of construction incurred by the assessee. 34. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Lahasa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671, CIT Vs. Sadhana Gupta 352 ITR 595 for this proposition. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT – A, remand report was submitted by the AO on 15/7/2015 wherein para number 2.2 it was specifically stated that the reference to the valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction was made only on the basis that s…

INDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. S. K. Yadav & Sh. Prashant Maharishiinder Singh Vs Ito 94, Village Goela Khurd Ward-43(3) New Delhi New Delhi Bcrps3678G (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2018

…1 Inder Singh V ITO A Y 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Inder Singh Vs ITO 94, Village Goela Khurd Ward-43(3) New Delhi New Delhi BCRPS3678G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 23.08.2018 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI A.M. 01 This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2009-10. F…

. ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

In the result the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 1996-97 Acit, Vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aabcp6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.

…following judgments in support of his case - ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. 197 TAXMAN 202 (SC) Pr. CIT v. J. Upendra Construction (P.) Ltd. 59 taxmann.com 144 (Gujarat) CIT v. Bajrang Lai Bansal 355 ITR 572 (Delhi) CIT v. Lahsa Construction (P.) Ltd 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) CIT vs. Smt Suraj Devi 328 ITR 604 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera 328 ITR 516 (Del) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 7 TAXMAN 13 (SC) 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that there were bona fide reasons regarding why the estimate made by DVO should not have been adopted. He submitted that the DVO a…

H.S. BEDI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

…. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that the Revenue may have for sustaining such addition. 10. In the facts of the present case it is plain that the seized document, which raised the suspicion of the Revenue…

R.S. BEDI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

…. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that the Revenue may have for sustaining such addition. 10. In the facts of the present case it is plain that the seized document, which raised the suspicion of the Revenue…

R.S. BEDI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

…. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that the Revenue may have for sustaining such addition. 10. In the facts of the present case it is plain that the seized document, which raised the suspicion of the Revenue…