Delhi in CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

351 ITR 20High Court2013#2449 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 366,339 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

section 142asection 150surrender of incomemat creditsection 158bdaccumulated profitssection 158bbsection 80icsection 35adshell companysection 142(2a)section 2(22)

Judgments citing Delhi in CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT(, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…search, the assessing officer is not required to refer the matter to the Department Valuation officer, especially when the books of accounts of the Appellant are correctly maintained. The High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal reported in [2013] 351 ITR 20 (Delhi) held as under: “However, we find that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had concluded, on facts, that there was no material found during the search to justify the reference to the DVO for his valuation of the said properties. The Tribunal held that there must be the books o. This, accord…

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

…the Assessing Officer could not have referred the 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 conside…

Vijay Kumar Kataria, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5477/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…ch, no addition can be made on the basis of Report of the DVO. In this regard, the case laws referred by the assessee are germane and support the case of the assessee. We may further refer to the following case laws:- a) C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013] 351 ITR 20 (DHC) Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no material found in the search and seizure operations, which would justify the Assessing Officer’s action in referring the matter of the District Valuation Officer for his opinion on valuation of the properties. Therefore, of no consequence. In any event, the Tribunal had also, on facts, held that…

Vijay Kumar Kataria, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5474/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…ch, no addition can be made on the basis of Report of the DVO. In this regard, the case laws referred by the assessee are germane and support the case of the assessee. We may further refer to the following case laws:- a) C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013] 351 ITR 20 (DHC) Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no material found in the search and seizure operations, which would justify the Assessing Officer’s action in referring the matter of the District Valuation Officer for his opinion on valuation of the properties. Therefore, of no consequence. In any event, the Tribunal had also, on facts, held that…

Vijay Kumar Kataria, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5473/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…ch, no addition can be made on the basis of Report of the DVO. In this regard, the case laws referred by the assessee are germane and support the case of the assessee. We may further refer to the following case laws:- a) C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013] 351 ITR 20 (DHC) Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no material found in the search and seizure operations, which would justify the Assessing Officer’s action in referring the matter of the District Valuation Officer for his opinion on valuation of the properties. Therefore, of no consequence. In any event, the Tribunal had also, on facts, held that…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

ITA - 120 / 2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015
Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…on the other hand, urged that the question of law as framed in the context of the present case does not arise for consideration and has since been settled by various decisions. She relied upon the decisions reported as CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal, (2013) 351 ITR 20, CIT v. Naveen Gera, (2010) 328 ITR 516 and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal, (2011) 335 ITR 572. Reliance was also placed upon the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. Lahsa Constructions (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 to say that DVO’s report could not be the sole basis for addition and that there has to be some further material on record. To the same…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

ITA/120/2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015
Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…on the other hand, urged that the question of law as framed in the context of the present case does not arise for consideration and has since been settled by various decisions. She relied upon the decisions reported as CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal, (2013) 351 ITR 20, CIT v. Naveen Gera, (2010) 328 ITR 516 and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal, (2011) 335 ITR 572. Reliance was also placed upon the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. Lahsa Constructions (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 to say that DVO’s report could not be the sole basis for addition and that there has to be some further material on record. To the same…