Dy. CIT v. Smt. Mala Kalsi

90 Taxmann.com 175High Court2018#13057 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. Smt. Mala Kalsi

ITO WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. VANGUARD JEWELS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3600/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito Ward-13(3)(1) Vs. Vanguard Jewels R. No. 227, Aayakar Ltd, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Office No. 501, Churchgate, Mumbai- Adibaba Apartment, 400 020 Gazdar Scheme, 16 Th Road, Rajesh Khanna Garden, Santacruz(W), Mumbai-400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv3480A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO Ward-13(3)(1) Vs. Vanguard Jewels R. No. 227, Aayakar Ltd, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Office No. 501, Churchgate, Mumbai- Adibaba Apartment, 400 020 Gazdar Scheme, 16 th Road, Rajesh Khanna Garden, Santacruz(W), Mumbai-400 054 PAN/GIR No. AAACV3480A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: This appeal by revenue is directed ag…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4668/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4665/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4664/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4663/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4662/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4667/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

ITA 4666/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhadra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 134(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 6Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

…f those companies. All these additions were made on protective basis in their hands. In case of Smt Mala Kalshi the coordinate bench has already decided the issue deleting the above addition on protective basis as per order dated 1st December 2017 reported in 90 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi). Further, in case of Shri Ajay Kalsi the coordinate bench has deleted the above addition as per order dated 05.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2012-13. Therefore, the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above addition. The ld DR could not cotrovert the above fact that the issue is squarely covered…

Dy. CIT v. Smt. Mala Kalsi (90 Taxmann.com 175) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax