Madras M. Pirai Choodi v. Income Tax Officer

302 ITR 40High Court2008#5753 most cited

What is Madras M. Pirai Choodi v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

Not granting an assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is a procedural irregularity, not a fatal flaw, and the matter may be remanded to provide such an opportunity.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Also referred to as

M. Pirai Choodi v. Income Tax Officer · 302 ITR 40 · opportunity of cross-examination · principles of natural justice · procedural irregularity · remand · assessment · assessee

Judgments citing Madras M. Pirai Choodi v. Income Tax Officer

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…e made, no addition under s. 153A could be made by AO without making any attempt at verification and without bringing any positive material on record. M/s Grace Development Associates. Mumbai. High Court Of Madras M. Pirai Choodi Vs. Income Tax Officer (2008) 302 ITR 40 (Mad) "Writ-Alternative remedy-Violation of principles of natural justice vis-à- vis assessment-Respondent Department refused to agriculture income shown by the petitioner (assessee) by placing accept the reliance on the statement of the Village Administrative Officer, overlooking the materials furnished by the petitioner to substantiate his agri…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100091/2016HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…eal to CIT (A). In the circumstances, the High Court should not have quashed the assessment proceedings, under Articles 226 of the Constitution. Impugned order is set aside. Liberty is granted to the assessee to move CIT(A) in M.Pirai Choodi Vs. ITO (2008)302 ITR 40 (Mad) set aside. 19 19.Further, in the case of Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1997) 65 CCH 1084 ISCC, wherein it is held that the expenditure penalty, fine etc for infraction of law wholly and exclusively for business export of tobacco at discounted price. The assessee claiming that it had…

P Mittal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6906/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. & Sh. AshviniFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…o the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of crossexamination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court thought it fit to set aside the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to grant opportunity of cros…

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHCA2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NISHANK GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 PRITY GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AHEPG6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHCA2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NISHANK GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 PRITY GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AHEPG6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SMT. KAMLESH RANI, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALPR0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 VISHAL KASHYAP, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: BMYPK9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 PREM RATTAN GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :…

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SMT. KAMLESH RANI, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALPR0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 VISHAL KASHYAP, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: BMYPK9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 PREM RATTAN GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :…

Kamlesh Rani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8218/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SMT. KAMLESH RANI, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALPR0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 VISHAL KASHYAP, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: BMYPK9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 PREM RATTAN GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :…

Aashna Capital Services (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHCA2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NISHANK GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 PRITY GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AHEPG6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

Rekha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 MS. REKHA MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 55(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2941L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee challenges order passed by Ld CIT(Appeals) 19 New Delhi confirming Ld AO’s action disallowing long term capital gains exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act invoking deeming provisions of section 68 of the Act. 2. The brief fac…

Rima Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 VINESH MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND AY: 2015-16 RIMA MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These aforesaid appeals have been filed by the respective assessee’s challenging similar order…

Vinesh Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 VINESH MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND AY: 2015-16 RIMA MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These aforesaid appeals have been filed by the respective assessee’s challenging similar order…

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8219/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SURENDER KUMAR, vs. ITO, WARD 39(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2941L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee challenges order passed by Ld CIT(Appeals) 13 New Delhi confirming Ld AO’s action disallowing long term capital gains exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act invoking deeming provisions of section 68 of the Act. 2. The brief facts o…

Amit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2724/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Amit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahpg2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69CSection 69c

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AMIT GARG, vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHPG2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee’s challenges order passed by Ld CIT(A) 35 New Delhi confirming AO’s action disallowing long term capital gains exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act invoking deeming provisions of section 68 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case…

Naseem Saad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 208/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…o the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court thought it fit to set aside the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to grant opportunity of cro…

Naseem Zafar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 207/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…o the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court thought it fit to set aside the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to grant opportunity of cro…

Nazia Zafar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 8093/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…o the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court thought it fit to set aside the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to grant opportunity of cro…

Daya Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 48(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7806/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 AMITABH BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ACTPB6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 ANJUL BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALLPB6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 DAYA BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 48(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AALPB6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil…

Amitabh Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7804/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 AMITABH BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ACTPB6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 ANJUL BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALLPB6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 DAYA BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 48(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AALPB6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil…

Anjul Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7802/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 AMITABH BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ACTPB6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 ANJUL BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALLPB6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 DAYA BANSAL, vs. ITO, WARD 48(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AALPB6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil…

Madras M. Pirai Choodi v. Income Tax Officer (302 ITR 40) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax