Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia

395 ITR 526High Court2017#35 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia authority for?

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

1,226

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,842 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia · 395 ITR 526 · search assessment · Section 153A · Section 132(4) · incriminating material · retracted statement · completed assessments · additions without incriminating evidence · Kabul Chawla principle

Also reported as

82 Taxmann.com 287248 Taxmann 384157 DTR 20

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153(1)statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 132(1)section 153a(1)section 153bpanchnamasection 132asearch assessmentblock periodsection 158bsection 158

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs Moon Beverages Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J Co No.06/Del/2019 (Ita No.6955/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moon Beverages Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.06/Del/2019 The Assessee Has Filed Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…tion since it is not based on any material found as a result of search on the appellant, as have been also held by the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526. 2. That since approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act was a mechanical and, invalid approval having been granted without due application of mind to the facts of the assessee company, order of assessment made u/s 153 A/143(3) is invalid and not in accordance with law. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that notice issued u/s 153A of the Act an…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 1397/Del/2016 [A.Y 2006-07]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…ation found in search and seizure operation regarding bogus share capital by the assessee”. 10. On these facts ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kabul Chawla 281 CTR 0045 [Del] which was followed in the case of Meeta Gutgutia 82 Taxmann.com 287 squarely apply wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that where no incriminating material was unearthed to show that there was violation by the assessee to disclose income/additions made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kabul Chawla read a…

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

…Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Shava) Ltd. [SLP (Civil) No. 18446/2018] dated 09.07.2018 d) CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Shava) Ltd. & Other [374 ITR 645 (Bom)] e) PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [96 taxmann.com 468 SC] f) PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [395 ITR 526 (Del)] g) PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [96 taxmann.com 468 SC] h) PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [395 ITR 526 (Del)] j)CIT Vs. Saumya Construction Pvt Ltd (Tax appeal No. 24 of 2016) dated 14th March 2016,(Guj) k)Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 V/s Anil Bholabhai Patel Dated- 30/08/2017.(Guj) 9. The AR also submitted that no addition can be made on the basis…

Megha Kalpesh Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5974/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Megha Kalpesh Shah, Dy. CIT CC-8(1), 303 Chandanbala Aayakar Bhavan, Apartment, M.K. Marg, Vs. RR Thakkar Marg, New Marine Lines, Walkeshwar, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AQOPS0956R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. CIT CC-8(1), Ms. Megha Kalpesh Shah, Room No.656, 6th Floor, 303 Chandanbala Aayakar Bhavan, Apartment, Vs. M.K. Road, R.R. Thakkar Marg, Mumbai – 400020 Walkeshwar, Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AQOPS09…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ma Ganga Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5154/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153C

…essment u/s 153C of the Act could be made only in respect of the issue in respect of which incriminating material was found. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 and Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the impugned addition was not based on the basis of any material, much less incriminating material found as a result of search which is evident from the plain reading of the assessment order. 16. Referring to the Document SCO-3 referred to by the ld. DR, the ld. counsel for the assessee s…

Jasmin K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 983/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-7827-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1140/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashish K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), Ajmera House, 4Th Floor R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम Pathakwadi, L.T.Marg Old Cgo Building, / Vs. Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-9075-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1113/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Minal M. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Adepa-9661-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 539/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Avani J. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Addpa-9331-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री छल्ला नागेन्द्र प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera DCIT-2(2), 4th floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8th floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old CGO Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. A…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5891, 5892, 5893, 5894, 5895, 5896 & 5897/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. JSK Industries Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd., Central Circle-8(1), 9 A.K. Naik Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Near New Empire M.K. Marg, Cinema, New Marine Lines, CST, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCJ 5937F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.6311, 6312, 6313, 6314, 6315 & 6316/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-1…

DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Modtech Industries, New Delhi

In the result, since the assessment order is set aside on legal issue, therefore, there is no need to decide the additions on merits which are left with academic discussion only

ITA 8783/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 50B

…make the reassessment under Section 153C of the Act.” d) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd. reported in 280 Taxman 147. e) Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526. f) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. in ITA No. 115 to 118/Del/2018. g) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs Sundaram IT Parks Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5166/Del/2018. h) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs M/s Five Vision Planners Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4460/Del/2014. i) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the…

Modtech Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, since the assessment order is set aside on legal issue, therefore, there is no need to decide the additions on merits which are left with academic discussion only

ITA 8045/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 50B

…make the reassessment under Section 153C of the Act.” d) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd. reported in 280 Taxman 147. e) Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526. f) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. in ITA No. 115 to 118/Del/2018. g) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs Sundaram IT Parks Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5166/Del/2018. h) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs M/s Five Vision Planners Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4460/Del/2014. i) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the…

Harman Singh Dhingra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4641/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 291B

…nd upheld by the Tribunal, so that the additions stood deleted in the case of DCIT Vs. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 76 ITR (Tribunal) (S.N.) 51 (Delhi). Following the same principle in cases that of CIT Vs. Mita Gutgutia proprietor M/s Ferns and Petals (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), the issue was decided in favour of the assessee therein. The Ld. AR further submitted that in cases where search and seizure took place though notice u/s 153A is issued but when no notice issued u/s 143(2) then the assessment is not valid as held in case of Chintels India Ltd. vs. DCIT…

Pawan Kumar Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 202/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 200/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment…

Ashish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment…

Sangeeta Kapoor, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2655/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agrawal, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D. R
Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…relied heavily on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 as well as the decision in case of CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia 257 taxman 441 of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 395 ITR 526. He further relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Sh. Bishan Bansal Vs. DCIT in ITA number 1187/Del/2017 dated 28.02.2020 and Praveen Kumar Kapoor Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2657 – 2658/Del/2018 dated 26th July 2021, he further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cintel India Ltd. Vs. DC 397 ITR 416. H…

ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Surendra Hanumanmal Chhajer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4804/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ial with the additions made qua the assessment year and therefore, the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 571(Del) and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 (Del) are applicable. 10. We have gone through the record and we find that the assessment order does not refer to any documents, whatsoever, found during the search, much less incriminating in nature. It is the settled principle of law in view of the decisions in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and…

ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Surendra Hanumanmal Chhajer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4803/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ial with the additions made qua the assessment year and therefore, the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 571(Del) and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 (Del) are applicable. 10. We have gone through the record and we find that the assessment order does not refer to any documents, whatsoever, found during the search, much less incriminating in nature. It is the settled principle of law in view of the decisions in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and…

ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Surendra Hanumanmal Chhajer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4800/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ial with the additions made qua the assessment year and therefore, the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 571(Del) and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 (Del) are applicable. 10. We have gone through the record and we find that the assessment order does not refer to any documents, whatsoever, found during the search, much less incriminating in nature. It is the settled principle of law in view of the decisions in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…ecision and the issue is now settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (discussed below). 9 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. Recently Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs. Pr CIT ( 96 Taxmann.com 468) has held that Invocation of section 153A to re- open concluded assessments of assessment years earlier to year of search was not justified in absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such earlier assessment year. The head note of the judgment is as under: Section 153A o] the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…ecision and the issue is now settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (discussed below). 9 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. Recently Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs. Pr CIT ( 96 Taxmann.com 468) has held that Invocation of section 153A to re- open concluded assessments of assessment years earlier to year of search was not justified in absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such earlier assessment year. The head note of the judgment is as under: Section 153A o] the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure…