Prahlad Bhattacharya v. CIT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any,

Bench: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

…By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2025 12:06:53 Signature Not Verified ITA 49/2025 Page 21 of 23 10. Further the ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prahlad Bhattacharya vs CIT reported in 386 ITR 708 (Cal) wherein it was held that it is for the revenue to bring on record contrary material to dislodge assessee’s evidences. 11. From the above, it is evident that each of the shareholder had filed confirmations wherein, they have given their complete income tax particulars and have confirmed that they have made the investment from their du…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any,

…By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2025 12:06:53 Signature Not Verified ITA 49/2025 Page 21 of 23 10. Further the ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prahlad Bhattacharya vs CIT reported in 386 ITR 708 (Cal) wherein it was held that it is for the revenue to bring on record contrary material to dislodge assessee’s evidences. 11. From the above, it is evident that each of the shareholder had filed confirmations wherein, they have given their complete income tax particulars and have confirmed that they have made the investment from their du…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…urrent finding pertaining to the factual matrix we find no merit in these Appeals which we accordingly dismiss.” 10. Further the ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prahlad Bhattacharya vs CIT reported in 386 ITR 708 (Cal) wherein it was held that it is for the revenue to bring on record contrary material to dislodge assessee‟s evidences. 11. From the above, it is evident that each of the shareholder had filed confirmations wherein, they have given their complete income tax particulars and have confirmed that they have made the investment from their duly acc…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALLAN EXTN., DELHI vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…urrent finding pertaining to the factual matrix we find no merit in these Appeals which we accordingly dismiss.” 10. Further the ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prahlad Bhattacharya vs CIT reported in 386 ITR 708 (Cal) wherein it was held that it is for the revenue to bring on record contrary material to dislodge assessee‟s evidences. 11. From the above, it is evident that each of the shareholder had filed confirmations wherein, they have given their complete income tax particulars and have confirmed that they have made the investment from their duly acc…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ubmitted that the order of the ld CIT(A) even on the merit is correct. He submitted that tribunal should not dislodge the finding of the ld CIT(A). To support his contention, he referred the decision of Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court in Prahlad Bhattacharya V CIT 386 ITR 708 para No. 20 wherein it has been held that Tribunal fell into an error in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) without first dislodging the reasons given by him. Assuming that another view was possible, that itself would be no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) unless it…

M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS INFRA. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ubmitted that the order of the ld CIT(A) even on the merit is correct. He submitted that tribunal should not dislodge the finding of the ld CIT(A). To support his contention, he referred the decision of Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court in Prahlad Bhattacharya V CIT 386 ITR 708 para No. 20 wherein it has been held that Tribunal fell into an error in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) without first dislodging the reasons given by him. Assuming that another view was possible, that itself would be no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) unless it…

M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS INFRA. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ubmitted that the order of the ld CIT(A) even on the merit is correct. He submitted that tribunal should not dislodge the finding of the ld CIT(A). To support his contention, he referred the decision of Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court in Prahlad Bhattacharya V CIT 386 ITR 708 para No. 20 wherein it has been held that Tribunal fell into an error in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) without first dislodging the reasons given by him. Assuming that another view was possible, that itself would be no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) unless it…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ubmitted that the order of the ld CIT(A) even on the merit is correct. He submitted that tribunal should not dislodge the finding of the ld CIT(A). To support his contention, he referred the decision of Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court in Prahlad Bhattacharya V CIT 386 ITR 708 para No. 20 wherein it has been held that Tribunal fell into an error in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) without first dislodging the reasons given by him. Assuming that another view was possible, that itself would be no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) unless it…