PCIT v. Krishna Devi

126 Taxmann.com 80High Court2021#346 most cited

What is PCIT v. Krishna Devi authority for?

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

249

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Krishna Devi · Section 10(38) · Section 68 · Section 143(3) · long term capital gains · bogus share transactions · penny stock · documentary evidence · genuineness of transactions · investigation report · third party information · preponderance of probability

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 148Section 131

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus ltcgpreponderance of probabilitysection 142(2)bogus long term capital gainpenny stocksection 10(38)third party informationentry operatorperiod of holdinglong term capital gainslive link

Judgments citing PCIT v. Krishna Devi

Jyoti Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2528/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2528/DEL/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jyoti Gupta, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 29, C/o Ravi Gupta, Advocate, New Delhi. E – 61, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. (PAN : AKCPG5459P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date of Order : 06.11.2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of I…

Vishwas Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 26(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3827/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanshri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…orts of market, as in the present case, it has been held that any reports of investigation officers would require corroborati investigation officers would require corroboration from evidence. The on from evidence. The judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and Karuna Garg v. ITO [(2019) 178 ITD 463 (Del Karuna Garg v. ITO [(2019) 178 ITD 463 (Del-ITAT)] are relied upon ITAT)] are relied upon in this regard. 14. In view of the facts and averments as above, it…

Vishwas Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 26(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanshri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…orts of market, as in the present case, it has been held that any reports of investigation officers would require corroborati investigation officers would require corroboration from evidence. The on from evidence. The judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and Karuna Garg v. ITO [(2019) 178 ITD 463 (Del Karuna Garg v. ITO [(2019) 178 ITD 463 (Del-ITAT)] are relied upon ITAT)] are relied upon in this regard. 14. In view of the facts and averments as above, it…

Jyoti Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5419/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2528/DEL/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jyoti Gupta, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 29, C/o Ravi Gupta, Advocate, New Delhi. E – 61, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. (PAN : AKCPG5459P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date of Order : 06.11.2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of I…

Rachna Sanjay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 626/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE SHRI/ST.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.CIT-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. PAN : AMDPS 6571 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia,…

Dharamendra Bhandari (HUF), Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3787/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roydharamendra Bhandari (Huf), Vs. Cit(A), A-126, Sushant Lok-1, National Faceless Appeal Gurgaon, Haryana Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadhd2238J Assessee By : Shri R. S. Ahuja, Ca Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri T James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dharamendra Bhandari (HUF), Vs. CIT(A), A-126, Sushant Lok-1, National Faceless Appeal Gurgaon, Haryana Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AADHD2238J Assessee by : Shri R. S. Ahuja, CA Shri PUshpdeep Singh, Adv Revenue by: Shri T James Singson, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/08/2024 Date of pronouncement 28/10/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3787 /Del/2023 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…CIT(A). The part of the extract of the decision of the ld. CIT(A) from page No.174 to 189 is reproduced as under:- “16 Judgements of Hon'ble High Courts:- 16.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT & Others vs. Krishna Devi & Others reported in (2021) 431 ITR 361: “ITAT Delhi Bench had deleted addition made u/s 68 of the Act in the case of assessee Smt. Krishna Devi. The Department went in appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against such deletion. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT in PCIT and Others vs. Krishna Devi and Others reported in (2021) 431 ITR 361. The Hon'ble Delh…

Bhavana Lalit Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1016/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ndravadan Jain HUF (ITA No. 454 of 2018)(Bom) ii) PCIT Vs. Ziauddin A. Siddiquie (ITA No. 2012 of 2017) (Bom) iii) CIT Vs. Shyam R. Pawar (54 taxmann.com 108)(Bom) iv) CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal (20 taxmann.com 529 (Bom) v) Pr. PCIT Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (126 Taxmann.com 80 (Del) 6. The Learned AR further submitted that the companies M/s. Radford Global Ltd. and M/s. Mishka Finance Ltd. were subjected to scrutiny by the SEBI and Interim orders passed by the SEBI against both the above said companies, have been revoked subsequently. In respect of Surbhi Chemicals & Investment Ltd., SEBI has not passed any adve…

ITO-28.3.1, Navi Mumbai vs. Seema Narendra Bapna, Nerul

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

ITA 1120/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…A Y : 2014–15 Income Tax Officer Versus Seema Narendra Bapna IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM A.Y.2014-15 ITO,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN ALGPS6788Q Assessee by Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. (DR), 22ndAugust, 2024 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement 10 October 2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. ITA number 1120/M/2024 is filed by The Income Tax…

Daksha Abani Das, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 9(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4254/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the authorities. b). The learned CIT(A) did not consider the detailed submission made and the documents filed during the proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the various judgments of the Tribunals which were directly having the same facts and also dealt with the company which the AO treated as a Penny Stock. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, cancel and or substitute any of the grounds of the

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed on 31/01/2024. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the facts stated hereinabove. On the other hand we find that the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT -12 Vs Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors:[2021] 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)[15/01/2021], cited on behalf of the Appellant, applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We find that in identical facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had rejected the approach adopted by the assessing officer in that case as flawed observing that the assessing officer had, in that case, concluded that t…

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

…## आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ''SMC" JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: Hon'ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.13/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष्/Assessment Year : 2015-16 | Mrs. Tara Soni | बनाम | The ITO | | | | |------------------------------------------------------|------|-------------------------|--|--|--| | W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Soni | Vs. | Ward-Dausa | | | | | J-423, Sangam Vihar Colony, Dausa 3033…

Vikas Malu, Uae vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 818/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.817/Del/2023 & 818/Del/2023 Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vikas Malu Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30 Plot No.79, Property No. Villa 43 New Delhi Hills View, Dubai Hills, UAE TAN/PAN: ACZPM0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, Advocate Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 18 07 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 09 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned…

Vikas Malu, Uae vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 817/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.817/Del/2023 & 818/Del/2023 Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vikas Malu Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30 Plot No.79, Property No. Villa 43 New Delhi Hills View, Dubai Hills, UAE TAN/PAN: ACZPM0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, Advocate Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 18 07 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 09 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned…

Haresh Dilip Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3646/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: ShriNishit GandhiFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIGIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.3646/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Haresh Dilip Vora vs The ITO, Ward 25(2)(4),Mumbai A/15, Narendra Apartment, 2nd [At Present jurisdiction with the ITO, Floor, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai] (West), Mumbai-400 056 Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C., Mumbai- PAN: AADPV1458Q 400 051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : ShriNishit Gandhi Respondent by : ShriP.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR Date of hearing : 05/09/2024 Date of pronouncement : 1…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jayantilal Bhagwanchand, Vs. The Income Tax Officer No.162/1, 5th Main, Ward – 5(2)(4), Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN – AAAJH 3721 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar S.V. Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 13.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by…

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

…cond appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial question of law”. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the ITAT. iii) 431 ITR 361 (Del) PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi iv) 200 Taxmann 186 (Del) (Mag)CIT v. Vishal Holding & Capital (P) Ltd. 15.1 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES: It is also settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, as has been held by following cases: i) 37 ITR 271…

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

…cond appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial question of law”. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the ITAT. iii) 431 ITR 361 (Del) PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi iv) 200 Taxmann 186 (Del) (Mag)CIT v. Vishal Holding & Capital (P) Ltd. 15.1 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES: It is also settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, as has been held by following cases: i) 37 ITR 271…

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

…cond appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial question of law”. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the ITAT. iii) 431 ITR 361 (Del) PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi iv) 200 Taxmann 186 (Del) (Mag)CIT v. Vishal Holding & Capital (P) Ltd. 15.1 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES: It is also settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, as has been held by following cases: i) 37 ITR 271…

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

…cond appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial question of law”. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the ITAT. iii) 431 ITR 361 (Del) PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi iv) 200 Taxmann 186 (Del) (Mag)CIT v. Vishal Holding & Capital (P) Ltd. 15.1 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES: It is also settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, as has been held by following cases: i) 37 ITR 271…

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 243/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Goyal Vegoils Limited DCIT, Vs. C/o Goyal Vegoils Villahe Kasar, Circle-02, Kota NH-12, Tehsil Ladpura, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 2595 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA jktLo dh vksj…