Dr. 8C Gupta v. CIT (Allahabad High Court)

248 ITR 782High Court2001#1738 most cited

What is Dr. 8C Gupta v. CIT (Allahabad High Court) authority for?

An admission of additional income made in a statement under Section 132(4) during a search operation is an important piece of evidence. If such a statement is later retracted or claimed to be made under duress, the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate that the admission was incorrect or involuntary, failing which it can form a valid basis for assessment.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT · Section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · admission of income · burden of proof assessee · duress claim · evidentiary value · search assessment · unexplained income

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69CSection 133(6)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 114retraction of statementsection 158bcsection 271aabsection 158bbdumb documentson-moneypanchnamasection 158bsurvey under section 133a

Judgments citing Dr. 8C Gupta v. CIT (Allahabad High Court)

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6757/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Pune vs. M/S Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Trust), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153A

…als. This position was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352 (P&H), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT, 328 ITR 400 (P&H), Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT, 248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya, 332 ITR 537 (Kerala), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak, 350 ITR 71 (Kerala). 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16.04.2014 notarized on 19.04.2014, we find that all these affidavits are stereo typed, identically worded stating that the s…

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 1574/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 32(1)Section 79

…aws i) Surjeet Singh chhabra v. Union of India (SC) ii) TS Kumarasami v. ACIT , 65 ITD 188 (Mad.) iii) MK Mohammad Kunhi v. CIT 92 ITR 341 (ker.) iv) V Kunhikannan v CIT 219 ITR 235 (Ker.) v) Hotel Kiran v ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune.Trib) vi) Dr.SC Gupta v. CIT, 248 ITR 782(Alld) 13. He concluded as under:- “Respectfully following the above judicial authorities on the subject, I hold as under:- (i) Statements in the nature of declarations covered by the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, are binding on the declarant. They can neither be retracted nor do they require any corroboration. Such declarations…

Kohinoor Crafts, Moradabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

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

ITA 9556/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kohinoor Crafts, Vs. Acit, Turki Estate, Kohinoor Tiraha, Central Circle, Sambhal Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aadfk7275N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 69C

…t in the case of Ravi 4 Kumar Verma vs. CIT reported in 214 Taxmann 117, wherein it has been held that retraction made after four years is an afterthought and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT, reported in 248 ITR 782 wherein it is held that retraction of statement made voluntarily is not sufficient and the burden is on the assessee to establish that earlier admission is wrong. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “ 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and under the…

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…ration and support the case of the department: • Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 SC • Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh Ravi Mathur (DB Income-tax appeal no 67/2002) & others • Dr. S. C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All) • S. S. Ratanchund Bholanath vs. CIT 210 ITR 682 (MP) • Hirasingh Co. Vs. CIT 330 ITR 791 (HP) • K. I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 dated 18/12/2018) • Pr. CIT vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (DB. Appeal No. 47/2018 dt 30/10/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) • Bachi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…ration and support the case of the department: • Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 SC • Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh Ravi Mathur (DB Income-tax appeal no 67/2002) & others • Dr. S. C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All) • S. S. Ratanchund Bholanath vs. CIT 210 ITR 682 (MP) • Hirasingh Co. Vs. CIT 330 ITR 791 (HP) • K. I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 dated 18/12/2018) • Pr. CIT vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (DB. Appeal No. 47/2018 dt 30/10/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) • Bachi…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Shreeji Sulz Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 669/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…tions against the authorities but has merely described the actual circumstances prevailing at the time of search and post search proceedings which were sufficient to force the director of the Appellant Company to make the bald declaration. v. Dr. S.C. Gupta (248 ITR 782 — All): In this case, the retraction was not accepted as there was no attempt on the part of the assessee to discharge the burden to show that there is no additional income. Our case is different in so far as that there is nothing, save the bald statement to show that there is additional income. The Appellant has also discharged its burden to cur…

Shreejesulz Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 507/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…tions against the authorities but has merely described the actual circumstances prevailing at the time of search and post search proceedings which were sufficient to force the director of the Appellant Company to make the bald declaration. v. Dr. S.C. Gupta (248 ITR 782 — All): In this case, the retraction was not accepted as there was no attempt on the part of the assessee to discharge the burden to show that there is no additional income. Our case is different in so far as that there is nothing, save the bald statement to show that there is additional income. The Appellant has also discharged its burden to cur…

Pratap N. Rajgor, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 5273/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.5273/Mum/2018 A.Y: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimsan &
Section 115JSection 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. Further the Assessing Officer has relied on the following judicial decisions:- i. Apex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (197) 911 ITR 18(SC) ii. Dr. S C Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2001) 248 ITR 782 iii. HonTale Madras High Court in the case of T S Kumarswamy vs. ACIT On the other hand, the AR of the appellant company has argued that there was a survey carried out u/s. 133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the Company's premises as under : Sr. Address of the premises No. 292, Princess Street, 2nd floor, Near Flyover, 1 Marine Lines, Mumbai…

Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4392/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani TanejaFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 141Section 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4392/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax , 3/47, Roop Nagar, Delhi. Central Circle -17, New Delhi. (PAN: AALPB2378R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashwani Taneja Respondent by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM Challenging the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called as “the learned CIT(A)’) in Appeal No.47/…

Inter Carat Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 148Section 69C

…n Raval. The assessee sought an opportunity to cross examination of Shri Hiren Raval, but the AO rejected the same by observing that the said request was not valid. In this regard, the AO placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Dr. S.C. Gupta Vs. CIT (248 ITR 782)(All) (b) Ramesh T Savla Vs. ACIT [Tax Appeal No.655 of 2000 (ITA No.1610/B/93)] 4. Accordingly the AO held that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex. He further relied upon the following case laws to come to the conclusion that the entire purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex should be disallowed…

Sh Suresh Chand Agarwal, Agra vs. ACIT 4(1), Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 357/AGR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AvocateFor Respondent: ShriInderjeet Singh, CIT DR

…aking retraction of the amount of income from Rs.1,50,00,000/- made during survey to Rs. 1,10,00,000/- shown in the return of income filed, the Ld. AR has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. S.C. Gupta Vs. CIT reported in 248 ITR 782 in which, it has been held that it is a settled law that though an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made to show that, it is not correct. I have considered this decision and I find that this decision is against the assessee because after referring to the…

M/S Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 40A(3)

…hile his statement recorded u/s 131 of IT. Act his attempt to explain it by way of agriculture income later on was untenable for is later retraction had no corroborative backing. (4) Dr. S.C.Gupta vs. CIT (2001) ITR 782 (All) In Dr. S.C. Gupta v/s CIT (2001) 248 ITR 782 (All), it was held that a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong and infact there wa…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sunilkumar O Kochhar, Mumbai

ITA 5360/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…esh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by the assessee before him. “(i) The survey u/s 133A was conducted in an illegal and irregular manner. The survey party resorted to brazen abuse of powers and acted in a high-handed manner. (ii) The survey party ‘fabricated’ the evidence in the ‘Sunlife Account Book’ and “Sunny Deluxe…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Renu S. Kochar, Mumbai

ITA 5261/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…esh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by the assessee before him. “(i) The survey u/s 133A was conducted in an illegal and irregular manner. The survey party resorted to brazen abuse of powers and acted in a high-handed manner. (ii) The survey party ‘fabricated’ the evidence in the ‘Sunlife Account Book’ and “Sunny Deluxe…

S.R. Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 3119/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3119/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S S.R. Developers, बनाम/ Asst. Commissioner Of A-3, Anjuman Nural Trust, Income Tax- Circle 15(2), V. Mohili Village, Room No. 113, Saki Naka, Matru Mandir Income Tax Andheri, Office, Mumbai 400 072. Tardeo Road, Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400 007. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abbfs0073R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan,DR
Section 133ASection 69C

…nt on oath has offered the income for taxation amounting to Rs. 1,75,00,372/- over and above the normal income on account of discrepancy in the WIP. The ld. D.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. S C Gupta v. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 782(All. HC) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC). 9. In the rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the assessee firm submitted that the assessee firm has returned income of Rs. 1.47 crores and the discrepancy in the WIP towards expenditure incurred Rs. 1,75,00,372/- has been off…

Nalin P. Choksey, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 45, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1769/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1769/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1770/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1771/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1773/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1774/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Mr. Nalin P. Choksey, बनाम/ The. Dy. Cit, Krishna Villa, Central Circle 45, V. Linking Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabpc0675L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hari S. Raheja Respondent By : Shri Gulshan Raj सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-12-2015

For Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…s undisclosed income of the assessee on account of surrender made by the assessee vide statement dated 5th October 2007 recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which as per AO is binding on the assessee in view of judgments passed in the case of Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT, 248 ITR 782 (All.) and Shri Ramesh T. Savla v. ACIT, Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2000 (ITA No. 1610/B/93) dated 27.7.2004 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that if there is nothing on record to indicate that assessee was pressurized by undue influence or coercion, than the retraction can be ignored. The AO held that in this case, the assessee has not filed any r…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central)-I vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/83/2013HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…11, 12. 16. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 963/2011 CIT Appellant Thi-ough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with iMr. Akash Vajpai, Mr. Zoheb riussain, Advocates. versus MAIIASHIAN D11lATTi LTD Respondent 'rhrough: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Ms.l'oonain Ahuja, Mr, Somil A.garwa[ and Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocates. ITA 965/2011 CIT Appellant 7"hrough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Ak.ash Vajpai,'Mi', Zoheb Hussain, .Advocates. versus MAHASl-IIAN DI IIAT1.1 LTD ' Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesli C}upLa, Advocate with Ms.Poonam Ahuia, Mr. Sornil Agarwal and Mr.Rohit Kuj…

CIT vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/964/2011HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…11, 12. 16. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 963/2011 CIT Appellant Thi-ough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with iMr. Akash Vajpai, Mr. Zoheb riussain, Advocates. versus MAIIASHIAN D11lATTi LTD Respondent 'rhrough: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Ms.l'oonain Ahuja, Mr, Somil A.garwa[ and Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocates. ITA 965/2011 CIT Appellant 7"hrough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Ak.ash Vajpai,'Mi', Zoheb Hussain, .Advocates. versus MAHASl-IIAN DI IIAT1.1 LTD ' Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesli C}upLa, Advocate with Ms.Poonam Ahuia, Mr. Sornil Agarwal and Mr.Rohit Kuj…

CIT vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/963/2011HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…11, 12. 16. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 963/2011 CIT Appellant Thi-ough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with iMr. Akash Vajpai, Mr. Zoheb riussain, Advocates. versus MAIIASHIAN D11lATTi LTD Respondent 'rhrough: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Ms.l'oonain Ahuja, Mr, Somil A.garwa[ and Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocates. ITA 965/2011 CIT Appellant 7"hrough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Ak.ash Vajpai,'Mi', Zoheb Hussain, .Advocates. versus MAHASl-IIAN DI IIAT1.1 LTD ' Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesli C}upLa, Advocate with Ms.Poonam Ahuia, Mr. Sornil Agarwal and Mr.Rohit Kuj…