How many judgments cite Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT?

962 judgments on BharatTax cite Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 148.

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

125 ITR 713Supreme Court of India1980#46 most cited

What is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

962

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT · 125 ITR 713 · natural justice · cross-examination · evidence · third party statement · retracted statement · opportunity to rebut · assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 132 Section 153A Section 153C Section 148 Section 132(4)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb section 292c retracted statement dumb documents section 132(4a)on-money loose papers documents seized live link section 34 section 69b section 292

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…nder :- P a g e | 14 ITA No. 257, 261 & 262/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Hitesh Mangilal Jain a) Andaman Timber Industries v. Comm. of Central Excise - Civil Appeal No.4288/2006), b) CIT v. Sunita Dhadda-ITA-197/2012 (SC), c) KishandchandChellaram vs. CIT-125 ITR 713 (SC), d) Sunil Aggarwal-64 taxmann.com 107 (Del-HC) 10.10 It is submitted that theLd. AO alleged that undisclosed cash belonging to the assessee is received back in garb of long term capital gain. In this context, the assessee submits that heavy onus is cast upon the person who asserts the allegations. The Ld. AO, except making bare allegations,…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…s are provided and opportunity of cross examination is provided to the suffering party, as under :- a) Andaman Timber Industries v. Comm. of Central Excise Civil Appeal No.4288/2006), b) CIT v. Sunita Dhadda-ITA-197/2012 (SC), c) KishandchandChellaram vs. CIT-125 ITR 713 (SC), d) Sunil Aggarwal-64 taxmann.com 107 (Del-HC) 10.10 It is submitted that theLd. AO alleged that undisclosed cash belonging to the assessee is received back in garb of long term capital gain. In this context, the assessee submits that heavy onus is cast upon the person who asserts the allegations. The Ld. AO, except making bare allegations,…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

DCIT - Circle4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastructure and Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2631/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahinsa Infrastructure & Room No. 678, Developers Limited, 6Th Floor, Vs. 60, Mulji Jetha Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 185/187, Princess Street, M.K. Road, Marinelines, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Aadca3891R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Dinkle Hariya For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 10-10-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 131Section 133A

…o the assessee, the AO has given only few documents, but not all the documents, despite a reminder given by the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram (125 ITR 713)(SC), held that the AO could not have placed reliance on the documents, which were not furnished to the assessee. It also took support of the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Layer Exports P. Ltd (2017)(53 ITR 416)(Mum), wherein it has been held that the unsigned papers could not be relied upon. The Tribunal also notic…

M/S Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

…f Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) the Court held that, when an affidavit is filed the averment therein is assumed to be correct unless the same is proved otherwise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), the Court held that though the proceedings under the Income are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, the department is bound to afford an opportunity to controvert and cross- examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance on. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 127 DTR…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…ss examination despite specific request made during the course of assessment proceedings, cannot be relied upon as it has no evidentiary value. i) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. ii) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) 125 ITR 713 (SC) KishnichandChellaram vs. CIT iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited v) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal vi) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. vii) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta viii) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta ix) 379 ITR 367 (Del) CIT v Sunil Aggarwal xi) ITA No(s)3185, 3…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.252/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikash Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 01/…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.247/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated…

Miot Hospitals Medical and Educational Mtrust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1645/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1645/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Miot Hospitals Medical & Income Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Exemptions Ward-4, No.4/112, Mount Poonamallee Road, Chennai Manapakkam, Chennai-89 [Pan: Aabtm3304L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sundar Raman, Ca अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 161Section 164(2)Section 250

…arbitrary or despotic actions. Therefore, any enquiries conducted at the back of the assessee and any conclusions drawn on the basis of such enquiries without confronting him, cannot justify any order arising therefrom. In the case of Kishan chand chella ram (125 ITR 713) Hon’ble Apex court has held that right to defend oneself is inherent to every litigant and cannot be taken away. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan chand chella ram Supra that an opportunity to cross examine :- 10 -: always rests with a defendant and cannot be taken away during any judicial proceedings. Thus we…

DCIT Cenral Circle - 8, New Delhi vs. Artline Vinimay Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 722/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Artline Vinimay Private Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Central Circle-8, H.No. 8, Ground Floor, New Delhi Todarmal Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aacca5237E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA & Sh. PranavFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…en allowed to the appellant due to which it has little evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, vide its order dated 2nd September 2015 and Kisnichand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). The amount of Rs. 2,06,57,000/- which was invested 4.4.10 as share application money in earlier years and received back during the year cannot be added under section 68, 69 or 69A of Income Tax Act. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that identity, genuineness or creditworthiness has not been proved. Necessary documentary evidence…

Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 655/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

…the absence of cross- examination of person(s) whose statement is being referred to, the document/statements, must, be excluded from consideration altogether in accordance with the settled principles of natural justice [Refer:Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT: 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE: 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)]; ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 54 19. The CIT(A) has, regarding the issue of cross- examination, incorrectly noted at para 6.11 of the order that “However, from the record, it is found that “the AO has not relied upon the statement of any person for the year under…

M/S Sanjay Singal HUF, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 610/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 410/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Gemco International cuke The ITO Vs. 3950, Lal Haweli, MSB Ka Rasta Ward 2(1) Johari Bazar, Jaipur 302 003 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 9238 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vivek Bhargava, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR…

Zula Merchandisc Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

…al part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. Cross-examination is must where Assessing Officer relies upon only on the statement of the Third Party unconnected with the appellant 29. In the case of Krishna Chand Chela Ram v. CIT reported in (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that “cross-examination is must where Assessing Officer relies upon only on the statement of the Third Party unconnected with the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the letters, dated 14.02.1955 and 09.03.1959, did not constitute any material evidence which the Tribunal could legitimately taken into acc…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 99/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 99 & 100/KOL/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle 1(2) 17, Ganesh Chandra Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, Avenue, Business Point, Kolkata-700 107, Vs. 5th Floor, Room No.506, West Bengal Kolkata-700 013 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCM0727D Assessee by : Shri Rites Goel, AR Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, DR Date of hearing: 08.07.2024 Date of pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: These appeals at the instance of the…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 100/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Jayantilal Bhagwanchand, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

…cross-examination which is against the principles of natural justice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 held that the income tax authorities before relying upon any material are required to provide such . Page 18 of 19 material to the assessee for rebuttable. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted as under: It is true that the proceedings under the income-tax law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and, there…

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.227/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) ITA no.228/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2019–20) Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 25, Red Cross Road, Sadar, Nagpur 440 001 ……………. Appellant PAN – AAJCS1078E v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jakhotia Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 07/08/2024 Date of Order – 02/09/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the a…

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…hat if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show-Cause Notice.” iii) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited v) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal vi) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. vii) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta viii) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta ix) 379 ITR 367 (Del) CIT v Sunil Aggarwal x) 382 ITR 639 (Del…