Honest Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

177 CTR 232Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#13067 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Also reported as

144 ITD 427

Judgments citing Honest Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…

Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1462/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. 1-A-1, 1-A-2, Subhash Colony, Circle-4, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzpb 7893 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 14/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 69

…e estimate adopted for the cost of construction is just a pure and rough estimate. Therefore deduction up to the level of 10% is warranted in such cases. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of CIT vs. Honest Group of Hotels Pvt Ltd. 177 CTR 232 (J&K) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “In view of this if the Ld. A.O. had considered the position of the assessee as a contractor and also as a supervisor for carrying out the construction work, therefore would have no occasion for making the addition. The addition made may kindly be deleted.” 14. From perusal of the impugned…

Radharaman Constructions, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: 27.10.2020
Section 154Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…of the Assesses while confirming the valuation report of the valuation officer. 12. Valuation report of the valuation officer is not binding on the CIT [A) he has to independently apply his mind and has to decide on merit. 13. In Suresh C. Mehta v. ITO (2013) 144 ITD 427 (Mum)(Trib.) held that, assessee had made various objections to such valuation report before Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner [Appeals) was bound to look into these objections so as to arrive at proper fair market value. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal can entertain objections relating to such valuation and Valuation Officer's val…

ACIT-16(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Vishwang Y Desai, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4445/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4445/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit-16(3) Shri Vishwang Y. Desai 446, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Lentin Chambers Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Dalal Street, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpd-4371-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Parikh-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…alue determined by Ld. DVO was less than 10% of the value determined by Ld. DVO and therefore, the additions were not justified. Reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. V/s CIT (177 CTR 232) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Rahul Constructions V/s DCIT (38 DTR 19) besides other decisions which have already been enumerated in the impugned order. Resultantly, the addition so made by Ld. AO was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the…

Teen Murti Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4223/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4223/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Teen Murti Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Ca, Central Circle, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ghaziabad New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct3359B Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 55ASection 69

…-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Alok Swaroop in ITA No. 2191/Del/2015 held that the difference upto 10% with regard to DVO report can be ignored. 2. The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Honest Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (177 CTR 232) 4 Teen Murti Products Pvt. Ltd. held that 10% of the difference of the value estimated by the DVO is liable to be ignored. 3. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs Pratap Singh, Amro Singh, Rajendra Singh 200 ITR 788 held that 10% difference in the valuation being an issue of estimation, can be ignored. 4. Section 55A(b) re…

Sh. Anil Swarup, Meerut vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

ITA 5928/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…fference between value declared and value estimated. Since it is case of estimation of value by the DVO, the Courts have held that the marginal difference needs to be ignored. We place reliance on the ratio laid down in Honest Group of Hotels vs ACIT (2000) 177 CTR 232 and Rahul Construction vs DCIT in ITA No.1547/Pune/2007. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the sale value declared by the assessee for computing the Income from Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. 12. Now, coming to the aspect of extent of ownership of the assessee. The assessee claimed that it is an ances…

Sh. Alok Swarup, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

ITA 2919/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…fference between value declared and value estimated. Since it is case of estimation of value by the DVO, the Courts have held that the marginal difference needs to be ignored. We place reliance on the ratio laid down in Honest Group of Hotels vs ACIT (2000) 177 CTR 232 and Rahul Construction vs DCIT in ITA No.1547/Pune/2007. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the sale value declared by the assessee for computing the Income from Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. 12. Now, coming to the aspect of extent of ownership of the assessee. The assessee claimed that it is an ances…

Honest Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (177 CTR 232) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax