Delhi in CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

351 ITR 20High Court2013#2452 most cited

What is Delhi in CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal authority for?

In a search assessment under Section 153C following a Section 132 search, an Assessing Officer cannot refer property valuation to a District Valuation Officer (DVO) for additions under Section 69 unless incriminating material regarding undervaluation is found during the search. Any DVO valuation made without such material is invalid.

47

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

Also referred to as

CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal · Abhinav Kumar Mittal · Section 69 · Section 132 · Section 153C · District Valuation Officer · DVO reference · property valuation · search assessment · incriminating material · unexplained investment · validity of DVO report

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Delhi in CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 384/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

…hich, in our opinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Department on this issue also stands dismissed.[Para 8.3] (v) 2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT Other Citation: (2013] 351 ITR 20 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ABHINAV KUMAR MITTAL Additions u/s 69 - search conducted u/s 132 - notice u/s 153C - valuation of properties referred to District Valuation Officer (DVO) - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- No reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal as no material was found in the search and seizure operations,…

Showing 120 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

Delhi in CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal (351 ITR 20) — Cited in 47 Judgments | BharatTax