Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT

179 ITD 310Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#17031 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 251(1)(a)Section 69 Section 69A Section 69B Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 251(1)(a)section 251(1)section 251 commissioner (appeals)income-tax officer escapement of income section 263 section 26 transfer section 25 section 147

Judgments citing Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT

Bimla, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-38(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7973/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69

…of the report of the DVO by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. Hence, impugned addition is hereby deleted. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed accordingly.” 12. He relied on the following case law :- (i) Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT 179 ITD 310; (ii) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443; (iii) CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556; (iv) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864; (v) CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin 399 ITR 524 (Ker); (vi) Nababharat Shiksha Parishad vs. DCIT in ITA No.163/CTK/2015 dated 11 October 2017; (vii) Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. ITO 171 ITD 116; (viii) Tulsi Tra…

Prashant Pitti, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3032/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2016-17 Prashant Pitti, Vs. Acit, C-179, Central Circle-4, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. New Delhi-110095. Pan Awxpp4522D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69A

…f the Tribunal had occasion to consider “whether enhancement by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act is prohibited on issues which have not at all been considered by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings” in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT (2019) 179 ITD 310 (Del-Trib) and the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not competent to enhance assessment by taking an income which income was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by Ld. AO during assessment. 18. The decision in Smt. Sneh Lata (supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(DR) is of no help to the Revenue as in that case the AY involved was 1…

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06 the ld. AR had drawn support from certain judicial pronouncements. Our attention was specifically drawn by ld. AR to the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench “E” in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT 179 ITD 310 (Del). Drawing our attention to the aforesaid order of the tribunal, it was submitted by the ld. AR that after relying on a host of judicial pronouncements including that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and that of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was observed by the tribunal that CIT(A) was not competent to enhance assessment by taking an income…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…h was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. 20. We find an identical issue had come up for before Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma vs ACIT reported in 179 ITD 310. We find the Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the 11 Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the income of the assessee considering the new source of income not at all considered by the Assessing Officer and accordingly set-aside the order of the…