Paramjit Singh v. ITO

323 ITR 588High Court2010#1947 most cited

What is Paramjit Singh v. ITO authority for?

A registered sale deed, including the sale consideration disclosed therein, cannot be disregarded or contradicted by oral evidence, as documents containing all terms and conditions preclude such oral testimony.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Paramjit Singh v. ITO · 323 ITR 588 · registered sale deed · sale consideration · oral evidence inadmissible · Section 69 · Section 69B · Section 69C · evidentiary value · written document · unexplained investments · income tax

Also reported as

195 Taxmann 273

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 292CSection 115BBESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69BSection 69CSection 131(1A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bfasection 271aaatransferee companysection 153(a)section 91protective assessmentsection 158bcsection 292csection 158bbsection 131(1a)indexed cost of acquisitionsection 38

Judgments citing Paramjit Singh v. ITO

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 212/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ale deed. Before adverting to the kind of material possessed by the AO to refute terms of contract translated in those registered sale deed, we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs. ITO, 323 ITR 588 (P&H) in which on the strength of sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act, the Hon’ble Court has held that when terms of contracts, grants or other dispositions of property have been reduced to the form of documents, then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grants or deposition of the property except the documents…

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 211/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ale deed. Before adverting to the kind of material possessed by the AO to refute terms of contract translated in those registered sale deed, we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs. ITO, 323 ITR 588 (P&H) in which on the strength of sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act, the Hon’ble Court has held that when terms of contracts, grants or other dispositions of property have been reduced to the form of documents, then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grants or deposition of the property except the documents…

Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 210/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…ale deed. Before adverting to the kind of material possessed by the AO to refute terms of contract translated in those registered sale deed, we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs. ITO, 323 ITR 588 (P&H) in which on the strength of sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act, the Hon’ble Court has held that when terms of contracts, grants or other dispositions of property have been reduced to the form of documents, then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grants or deposition of the property except the documents…

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 452/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Ganesh Builders, The DCIT बनाम C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A Central Circle-1 H.No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- Chandigarh 160019 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAHFG2780N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 451/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20…

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 452/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Ganesh Builders, The DCIT बनाम C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A Central Circle-1 H.No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- Chandigarh 160019 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAHFG2780N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 451/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20…

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

…AO himself, was cancelled and the amounts exchanged between the parties in ATS till its cancellation were less than the amount of regd. sales deed of the appellant. (vii) The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) had held as under: "Whether in view of settled principle that no oral evidence is admissible once documents contain all terms and conditions, sale consideration disclosed in sale deed in instant case was to be accepted and no oral evidence could have been adduced to contradict such sale consideration - Held, yes - Whether, thus, view taken…

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

…AO himself, was cancelled and the amounts exchanged between the parties in ATS till its cancellation were less than the amount of regd. sales deed of the appellant. (vii) The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) had held as under: "Whether in view of settled principle that no oral evidence is admissible once documents contain all terms and conditions, sale consideration disclosed in sale deed in instant case was to be accepted and no oral evidence could have been adduced to contradict such sale consideration - Held, yes - Whether, thus, view taken…

Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (2) (3), Rajkot

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 240/RJT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody, I.T.O., “Pankaj”, Jalaram-3, Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Street No.2, Rajkot. Near Indira Circle, University Road, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (Conducted through E-Court, Rajkot) BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 240/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody, I.T.O., “Pankaj”, Jalaram-3, Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Street No.2, Rajkot. Near Indira Circle, University Road, Rajkot. PAN: ADOPM4697C Assessee by : Shri R.M. Rindani, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 16/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER W…

Smt Joyti Garg, Mandsour vs. ACIT Ratlam, Ratlam

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Jyoti Garg Acit, Ratlam Mandsaur बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agzpg9989M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2022

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…essee without even giving the without giving even opportunity of hearing. 14. We now refer some more cases, where it has been held that the value declared in the registered-deed has to be given full credence. These decisions are: (a) Paramjeet Singh Vs. ITO 323 ITR 588 (P&H High Court): “Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principle is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dt. 24th Sept., 2002 (A7) has to be accepted and it cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Therefore, th…

Mangal Annasaheb Jadhav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmednagar

In the result, Ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed and Ground

ITA 665/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mangal A. Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, M/S.Shah Khandelwal Jain & Vs Ahmednagar. Associates, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune - 411001. Pan: Ahypj 9285 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 09.12.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Fit Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 10,57,073/- Made By The Ao, Doubting The Opening Cash Balance Which Is Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On- Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. No Such Addition Is Warranted In The Case Of The Appellant. The Addition Made By The Ao & Upheld By Cit (A) Be Deleted. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Made By Theao, Doubting The Advances Against Booking Of Flats Received In Cash In Which Were Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing

…title always follows possession. Chuharmal vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC). Documentary evidence plays an important part in law. The Courts attach great value for documentary evidence. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H) pointed out that oral evidence is not conclusive as against documentary evidence under sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4.2.13 In view of the aforesaid discussion on the facts of the case and decisions cited, I hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- shown to have been received…

Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- IV (2), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

…i dated 19.04.2007 SLP (C) No. 12625 of 2005 wherein it has been held that photocopy of a document is not admissible evidence in terms of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. b) Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588: 236 CTR 466 (P&H) wherein it has been held “There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts,…

Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- IV (2), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

…i dated 19.04.2007 SLP (C) No. 12625 of 2005 wherein it has been held that photocopy of a document is not admissible evidence in terms of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. b) Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588: 236 CTR 466 (P&H) wherein it has been held “There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts,…

Sh.Baljit Singh Bachal, Ambala vs. ITO, W-1, Amabal

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

ITA 12/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.12/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Sh. Baljit Singh Bachal, बनाम The Ito, Vpo-Panjokhera Sahib, Ward-1, Ambala 134011 Ambala "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Banpb3278H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Meenahkshi Vohra, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30. 07.2021 आदेश/Order Perr.L. Negi:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenahkshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…Bachal, Ambala 5 confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- as undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the reliance by the Ld. CIT(A) on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab a Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Vs ITO as reported in 323 ITR 588, is wholly misconceived and it is not applicable the facts of the case. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of. 6. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press ground No. 1 and 2 of its appeal. Accordingly…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2652/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…ence, no addition can be made merely on the basis of presumption. The onus is on the revenue to prove the same. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. ITO vs. Venue Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahmd.) b. Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H HC) 25. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It can be seen that the assessee company had purchased land at Tifra Bilaspur for Rs. 55,44,800/- including stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 7,06,705/-. The Ld. DR submitted that as per the observations of the Assessing Officer there…

M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2429/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…ence, no addition can be made merely on the basis of presumption. The onus is on the revenue to prove the same. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. ITO vs. Venue Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahmd.) b. Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H HC) 25. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It can be seen that the assessee company had purchased land at Tifra Bilaspur for Rs. 55,44,800/- including stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 7,06,705/-. The Ld. DR submitted that as per the observations of the Assessing Officer there…

M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2428/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…ence, no addition can be made merely on the basis of presumption. The onus is on the revenue to prove the same. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. ITO vs. Venue Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahmd.) b. Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H HC) 25. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It can be seen that the assessee company had purchased land at Tifra Bilaspur for Rs. 55,44,800/- including stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 7,06,705/-. The Ld. DR submitted that as per the observations of the Assessing Officer there…

R.D.Kasiviswanathan, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2, Madurai

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

ITA 1538/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 102Section 131

…. P. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC). 2.2. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to note that as per sec. 102, 103 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof was on the transferor. 2.3. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider the decisions in CIT V. Paramjit Singh v. ITO 323 ITR 588 (P&H) and ITAT, Jaipur Bench order in ITA No. 467/JP/201 1 in Sharad U. Mishra v. DCIT dt. 25-11-2016 which are on identical point though they were placed before him during the course of appeal hearing. 2.4. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to note that the transferor did not adduce any evidence to prove that the monies deposited into the bank accounts of…

Vijay Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5754/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ook’: 1. Order of Hon’ble Supreme court in CIT Vs. P.V. Kalayansundraram (2007) 294 ITR 49/164 Taxman 78 confirming the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259/155. 2. Order in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010), 323 ITR 588 of Punjab and Haryana Court followed in Sunita Dhadda Vs. Dy. CIT, 2013(Jaipur-Tribunal) by ITAT Jaipur. 3. Order of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Dhadda, shri Padam Chand Dhadda And Smt. Vijay Laxmi Dhadda, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 197/2012, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 199/2012 and D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 198/2012, Dated…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 170/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…d in the books of account . The Assessing Officer not even chosen to cross examine the vendor in order to find out the real consideration passed on in the transaction. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO, (2010) 323 ITR 588 considering the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 held that in case where the purchase of the property was evidenced by duly registered written sale deed, the same could not be disbelieved even on any oral submission made by the assessee or any other persons. Similarly, the Jurisdictional High Court in the cas…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 169/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…d in the books of account . The Assessing Officer not even chosen to cross examine the vendor in order to find out the real consideration passed on in the transaction. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO, (2010) 323 ITR 588 considering the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 held that in case where the purchase of the property was evidenced by duly registered written sale deed, the same could not be disbelieved even on any oral submission made by the assessee or any other persons. Similarly, the Jurisdictional High Court in the cas…