Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

Kohinoor Crafts, Moradabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kohinoor Crafts, Vs. Acit, Turki Estate, Kohinoor Tiraha, Central Circle, Sambhal Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aadfk7275N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

…mar (HUF) vs. CIT, (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC); (iv) Avadh Kishore Das vs. Ram Gopal, AIR 1979 SC 861; (v) B. Kishore Kumar vs. CIT, 62 taxmann.com 215; (vi) Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274, 351 ITR 143 (Del); (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 373 ITR 9; (viii) Smt. Dayawanti vs. CIT, 75 Taxmann.com 308; (ix) Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT, 214 CTR 218; (x) CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291 ITR 172; (xi) Ravi Mathur & Others (DB Appeal No.67/2002 & Others – Rajasthan High Court); (xii) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setai (ITA 935/2016 dated 01.05.2017); (xiii) Kanti Lal Parbhu Das Patel vs. DCIT (2005) 93 IT…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

…ad not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was justified. l) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

…Bombay High Court confirmed (Copy Enclosed) (vi) Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT [2003] 133 Taxman 432 (Gauhati)/[2003] 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 651 (Gauhati) (Copy Enclosed) (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) (viii) PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) G. On the basis of documents seized from residence of Sh.R.K.Miglani, M/s Radico Khaitan Limited surrendered Rs. 27.50 cr. before Settlement Commission as against unaccounted payments of Rs. 30.02 cr. found recorded. H. On the basis of document…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

…Bombay High Court confirmed (Copy Enclosed) (vi) Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT [2003] 133 Taxman 432 (Gauhati)/[2003] 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 651 (Gauhati) (Copy Enclosed) (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) (viii) PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) G. On the basis of documents seized from residence of Sh.R.K.Miglani, M/s Radico Khaitan Limited surrendered Rs. 27.50 cr. before Settlement Commission as against unaccounted payments of Rs. 30.02 cr. found recorded. H. On the basis of document…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Mahesh Mehta, Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

…12) 20 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi), Surendra M Khandhar vs. ACIT (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bombay), M/s. Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-238-SC- IT), Greenview Restaurant vs. ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati), Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 9, PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) and ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain 337 ITR 238 (Chhattisgarh). 14. Undisputedly, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Santosh Kumar Garg were owner of 3500 shares of RRFSL and the said company was also owner of the said property, Plot No.115, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. It is also not in dispute that Mahesh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Kusum Mehta, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

…12) 20 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi), Surendra M Khandhar vs. ACIT (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bombay), M/s. Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-238-SC- IT), Greenview Restaurant vs. ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati), Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 9, PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) and ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain 337 ITR 238 (Chhattisgarh). 14. Undisputedly, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Santosh Kumar Garg were owner of 3500 shares of RRFSL and the said company was also owner of the said property, Plot No.115, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. It is also not in dispute that Mahesh…

Kusum Mehta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

…12) 20 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi), Surendra M Khandhar vs. ACIT (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bombay), M/s. Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-238-SC- IT), Greenview Restaurant vs. ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati), Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 9, PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) and ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain 337 ITR 238 (Chhattisgarh). 14. Undisputedly, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Santosh Kumar Garg were owner of 3500 shares of RRFSL and the said company was also owner of the said property, Plot No.115, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. It is also not in dispute that Mahesh…

Mahesh Mehta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

…12) 20 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi), Surendra M Khandhar vs. ACIT (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bombay), M/s. Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-238-SC- IT), Greenview Restaurant vs. ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati), Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 9, PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) and ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain 337 ITR 238 (Chhattisgarh). 14. Undisputedly, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Santosh Kumar Garg were owner of 3500 shares of RRFSL and the said company was also owner of the said property, Plot No.115, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. It is also not in dispute that Mahesh…

Avinash Kumar Setia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiavinash Kumar Setia, Vs. Dcit, B-33, Shivalik, Malvia Nagar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abbps9057K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…rmed by the honourable Delhi High Court in the present case and therefore the assessee has concealed the income. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Raj Hans Towers private limited vs Commissioner of income tax in 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) to support the case of the revenue. 6. Assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal precisely challenging the initiation of the penalty proceedings with respect to the specific charge. However, looking to the facts of the case, we do not adjudicate on admission of the additional ground but proceed to decide the issue on the merit…

Summit India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

…GP of the assessee’s business was fluctuating between 21.82% to 24.81% in 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decisions reported in Bachittar Singh vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P&H) and CIT Raj Hans towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) on the aspect of making addition on the basis of retracted statement. 14. With the above observations, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal. Assessee is, therefore, in this appeal challenging the same on the ground that in respect of the documentary evidence, decided cases and in the absence of any scientific basis for…

Ved Prakash, Haryana vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1409/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1410/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1411/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1412/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1413/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ved Parkash, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Sh. Partap Singh, Tax, Sco 202-203, Office Of Paras Wali Gal, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax, Huda City Centre, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azyps0463J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Each Dated 30.12.2016. 2. In Ita No. 1409/Del/2017, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Assessed Income After Giving Appeal Effect Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Hon'Ble Itat Was Wrongly Determined On 03/03/2011 At Rs.1,58,925/- Instead Of Correct Computation At Rs.66,425/-. Even This Issue Has Not Been Considered Though Raised. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts Of The Case Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Income From School Without

…ing coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed." [Para 9] 6. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar S…

Ved Prakash, Haryana vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1409/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1410/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1411/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1412/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1413/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ved Parkash, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Sh. Partap Singh, Tax, Sco 202-203, Office Of Paras Wali Gal, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax, Huda City Centre, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azyps0463J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Each Dated 30.12.2016. 2. In Ita No. 1409/Del/2017, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Assessed Income After Giving Appeal Effect Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Hon'Ble Itat Was Wrongly Determined On 03/03/2011 At Rs.1,58,925/- Instead Of Correct Computation At Rs.66,425/-. Even This Issue Has Not Been Considered Though Raised. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts Of The Case Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Income From School Without

…ing coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed." [Para 9] 6. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar S…

Ved Prakash, Haryana vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1409/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1410/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1411/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1412/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1413/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ved Parkash, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Sh. Partap Singh, Tax, Sco 202-203, Office Of Paras Wali Gal, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax, Huda City Centre, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azyps0463J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Each Dated 30.12.2016. 2. In Ita No. 1409/Del/2017, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Assessed Income After Giving Appeal Effect Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Hon'Ble Itat Was Wrongly Determined On 03/03/2011 At Rs.1,58,925/- Instead Of Correct Computation At Rs.66,425/-. Even This Issue Has Not Been Considered Though Raised. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts Of The Case Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Income From School Without

…ing coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed." [Para 9] 6. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar S…