KishinchandChellaram v. CIT

152 ITR 507High Court1985#2993 most cited

What is KishinchandChellaram v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is void if it is based on mere surmise and suspicion rather than proof.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT · assessment order void · surmise and suspicion · basis of assessment · proof not suspicion · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 131Section 69CSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271econstruction pepenalty under section 271dcorpus fundsection 269ton money receiptsection 53joint development agreementsection 269sjdatrcsection 271e

Judgments citing KishinchandChellaram v. CIT

Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…713 (SC) - Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd v. CIT: 237 ITR I (SC) - State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram: AIR 1974 SC 2335 - Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal: 167 ITR 498 (SC) - CIT v. Pradeep Kumar Gupta: 207 CTR 115 (Del) - Sona Electric Company v. CIT: 152 ITR 507 (Del) - CIT v. Eastern Commercial: 210 ITR 103, 110 (Cal) - P.S. Abdul Majeed v. STO 209 ITR 821. 823 (Ker) - CIT v. Sham Lal: 127 ITR 816 (P&H) P a g e | 21 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) - Mukand Singh and Sons v. Presiding Officer: 107 STC 300 (P&H) - Anupam Agencies v. State of Punjab: 98 STC 338 (P&H) - Prakash Chand Mehta v. CIT: 220…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3907/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…proceedings. Following the approach adopted by us in SMC ITA Nos.3906 & 3907/Del/2023 Share Brokers (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.”  Sona Electric Company vs. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi High Court) “Then, there is finally, the third question which requires to be examined. The statement of Shri Sardari Lal was recorded on 23rd August, 1969, in the absence of the assessee. On that date, a letter had been submitted on behalf of the assessee to state that the grandmother of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. managing partner of the asse…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3906/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…proceedings. Following the approach adopted by us in SMC ITA Nos.3906 & 3907/Del/2023 Share Brokers (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.”  Sona Electric Company vs. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi High Court) “Then, there is finally, the third question which requires to be examined. The statement of Shri Sardari Lal was recorded on 23rd August, 1969, in the absence of the assessee. On that date, a letter had been submitted on behalf of the assessee to state that the grandmother of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. managing partner of the asse…

ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Phoenix Infraventures and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 867/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 68

…estor company, as unexplained cash credit. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT-Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs. Sringeri Technologies Pvt. Ltd (supra) and also the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Sona Electrical Company Vs. CIT reported in 152 ITR 507. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 10 case of Lovely Exports Vs. CIT reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and also the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd reported in 116 Taxman.com 113 (SC). 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record, and gone through the order…

ACIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi vs. B.R Goel and Sons HUF, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1529/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. B. R. Goel & Sons Huf, Central Circle-29, C-28, Preet Vihar, Nirman New Delhi Vihar, Se East Delhi- 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadhb5670C Assessee By : Shri Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By: Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

…ion u/s. 68 of the Act of entire amount of cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee. The learned counsel also place reliance on the judgment Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Sona Electric Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (152 ITR 507) and order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal (ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 and Smt. Parminder Kaur Matharoo us. ITO (ITA No. 840/Del/2021 order dated 15.11.2022 and submitted that addition made by the AO and upheld the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and deleted. 9. Replying to the above the learned Senio…

Dalas Biotech Limited, Bhiwadi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 147/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv (Physical)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…e Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, the appellant's case has been found covered by the following judgments: - i. CIT v/s. Meta Chem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) ii. Nemichand Kolhani v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii. iSona Electric Co. v/s. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) iv. Tam Tam Pedda Guruna Reddy v/s. JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) In the case of M/s. Capaxo Logistics Pvt Ltd. ‘’14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the assessee has received amount of loan and advances for Rs. 5 crore each from Shri Rameshbhai Thakor and Shri Vin…

Tara Soni, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 13/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

…e explanation furnished by the assessee needs to be considered objectively and the explanation given cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient grounds, on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. Sona Electric Co v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 507 (Del.); Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC). - 29. Unless any evidence, direct or indirect, is brought to the fore by the ld. AO which showed that the sale proceeds of shares so received actually belonged to the assessee, no addition can be made to the income of the assessee merely on suspicion. Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon'…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mention about the nature of notings in the loose slips found in the premises of DSR. In such cases the assessment order is void as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Sona Electric Co. v. CIT 119841 152 ITR 507 (Delhi), Nathu Ram Prem Chand v. Commissioner /1963] 49 ITR 561 [All], VasanjiGhela& Co. v. CST 119771 40 STC 549 (Born) and E.M.0 (Works) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1963] 49 ITR 650 (All), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 tcycmann.com 3 (SC). 1. The assessment order has been pasSed on mere surmise and suspicion. It is a well settled proposition…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

…le Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, the appellant's case has been found to be covered by the following judgments as well:- i) CIT V/s. Meta Chem Industries 245 ITR 160(MP) ii) Nemichand Kolhani v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii) Sona Electirc Co V/s CIT 152 ITR 507(Delhi) iv) Tarn Tarn Pedda Guruna Reddy V/s JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) Finding:- On appraisal of these fresh evidences along with the submissions made by the appellant including the copy of the appellate order of the ClT(A)-5, Ahmedabad passed in the case of Shri Surendra M. Shah and binding judgments of various High Courts, the identity of Smt. Ha…

Ashwini Kumar Taneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…(SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 • GG Films vs. ITO 45 TTJ 644 (Cochin) and Anil Kumar Midha (HUF) vs. ITO 100 TTJ 644 (jodhpur) • Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, Biahr 103 ITR 344 (Pat) • Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati) • Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) • S. Hastimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 49 ITR 0273. Ld. DR however supported the findings of Ld. ΑΟ. 5. 6. On appreciating the material on record and the submissions, and the grounds raised, primarily it comes forth that the assessee was given part relief by the Id. CIT(A) . On appreciating the order of the Id. CIT(A) , it comes up…

DCIT Central Circle 29, New Delhi vs. B.R. Goel & Sons, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1769/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ion u/s. 68 of the Act of entire amount of cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee. The learned counsel also place reliance on the judgment Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Sona Electric Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (152 ITR 507) and order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO Mrs. Deepali Sehgal (ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 and Smt. Parminder Kaur Matharoo vs. ITO (ITA No. 840/Del/2021 order dated 15.11.2022 and submitted that addition made by the AO and upheld the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and deleted. 9. Replying to the above the learned Senior DR…

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. B.R. Goel & Sons, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1768/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ion u/s. 68 of the Act of entire amount of cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee. The learned counsel also place reliance on the judgment Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Sona Electric Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (152 ITR 507) and order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO Mrs. Deepali Sehgal (ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 and Smt. Parminder Kaur Matharoo vs. ITO (ITA No. 840/Del/2021 order dated 15.11.2022 and submitted that addition made by the AO and upheld the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and deleted. 9. Replying to the above the learned Senior DR…

ITO, War4D-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4774/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 68

…and no documentary evidence was supplied to assessee, could not be considered in making addition on account of alleged accommodation entries - Held, yes [Paras 3 & 4]” iv) Reliance can also be placed on the following case laws:  Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT, 152 ITR 507 (DEL)  Amar Singh vs ITO 53 TTJ (DEL) 692  Virendra Kumar Saklechavs DCIT. 59 TTJ (Ind) 785 UdeyrajaGoliya (HUF) vs. ACIT, 64 ITD (Bom) 21 (TM) 15. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its various judgments on accommodation entries, has clearly held that if confirmation, PAN, IT Return, Bank account etc. are filed, the addition could not be sustained.”…

KishinchandChellaram v. CIT (152 ITR 507) — Cited in 39 Judgments | BharatTax